The Tenth Circuit on Monday issued four published opinions and no unpublished opinions.

Published

In Golan v. Holder, the Court reversed the district court’s decision by finding that the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), Pub. L. No. 103-465, § 514, 108 Stat. 4809, 4976–81 (1994) (codified as amended at 17 U.S.C. §§ 104A, 109), does not violate the freedom of expression under the First Amendment. Section 514 of the URAA, “which granted copyright protection to various foreign works that were previously in the public domain in the United States,” was enacted within Congressional authority under the Copyright Clause; no freedom of speech violations exist under the First Amendment as the section advances an important government interest and is not substantially broader than necessary to advance that interest.

In United States v. Salazar, the Court reversed the district court’s decision by finding that Respondent did not submit to a highway patrol trooper’s initial show of authority in turning on his emergency flashing lights. Respondent’s actions of backing his car away from the trooper’s vehicle, coupled with other reasonably suspicious conduct observed prior, provided the trooper with sufficient grounds to suspect that “criminal activity was afoot;” Respondent was not detained until he obeyed the trooper’s command to get out of the truck and, at that point, the trooper had reasonable suspicion to detain him.

In Sines v. Wilner, the Court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner failed to argue that his petition’s denial would lead to an inadequate or ineffective remedy. Additionally, Petitioner failed to appropriately appeal the decision and attempts to do so through alternative means are insufficient to grant relief.

In Fredericks v. Jonsson, the Court affirmed the district court’s decision finding that Respondent, a licensed psychologist, had no duty to warn Petitioners about the dangers posed to them by one of Respondent’s patients; the patient, with a history of stalking Petitioners, attempted to break into Petitioners’ home after his evaluation by Respondent. Respondent’s profession qualifies her for protection from civil claims under Colorado’s mental-health-professional liability statute, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-117. Additionally, the patient never communicated to Respondent any serious threat of imminent physical violence against Petitioners; only by such express communication would a duty to warn arise.