>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Leonte WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Vipin SHAH, Suzann Bailey, John Baldwin, and Jacqueline Lashbrook, Defendants-Appellees.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-06-12\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\nNo. 18-2439\n\nLEONTE WILLIAMS,\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\n\n v.\n\n\nVIPIN SHAH, SUZANN BAILEY,\nJOHN BALDWIN, and JACQUELINE\nLASHBROOK,\n Defendants-Appellees.\n\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Southern District of Illinois.\n No. 3:15-cv-1278-SMY-RJD — Staci M. Yandle, Judge.\n\n\n\n ARGUED MARCH 26, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 12, 2019\n\n\n Before BAUER, ROVNER, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\n ROVNER, Circuit Judge. Leonte Williams, an inmate in the\ncustody of the Illinois Department of Corrections, sued a\nnumber of prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that\nthey violated his Eighth Amendment rights by providing\n\f2 No. 18-2439\n\ninadequate nutrition through a “brunch” program that served\nonly two meals a day. The district court granted summary\njudgment in favor of the defendants. Because the record\nestablishes without dispute that the brunch program was\nadequate as designed and also because Williams lacks evidence\nthat any of the defendants knew that he was allegedly not\nreceiving adequate nutrition, we affirm.\n I.\n During the relevant time period, Williams was incarcerated\nat Pinckneyville Correctional Center in southern Illinois.\nDuring four or five months of Williams’ stay at Pinckneyville,\nthe facility participated in a pilot “brunch” program designed\nby Suzann Bailey, a licensed dietician and the Food Service\nAdministrator for the Illinois Department of Corrections\n(“Department”). Prior to the brunch program, Illinois prisons\nused a regular meal plan that consisted of three meals per day,\nwith “Master Menus” formulated by Bailey to provide approx-\nimately 2200 to 2400 calories per day, including a minimum of\nsix ounces of protein per day. Dietary Managers at each\ncorrectional facility in Illinois were required to follow Bailey’s\nMaster Menus as closely as possible, making substitutions\nwhen necessary and replacing unavailable items with compa-\nrable foods.\n The brunch program provided two meals per day rather\nthan three, combining breakfast and lunch into a single meal.\nBailey designed a set of Master Menus for the brunch program\nthat were formulated to provide the same 2200 to 2400 calories\nper day as the three-meal plan, including at least eight ounces\nof protein (a two ounce increase over the regular three-meal\n\fNo. 18-2439 3\n\nplan), and at least five servings of fruits or vegetables per day.\nAs with the regular meal plan, Dietary Managers at the\ncorrectional centers were charged with implementing these\nMaster Menus as closely as possible, again with allowances for\nsubstitutions of like items when planned foods were not\navailable. In Bailey’s professional opinion, two meals contain-\ning 2200 to 2400 calories, including eight ounces of protein,\nwould provide adequate nutrition to individuals who were\notherwise healthy and not in need of specific dietary accommo-\ndations for medical conditions. For persons having special\ndietary needs, the Department allowed therapeutic dietary\ntrays as prescribed by physicians. At Pinckneyville, the brunch\nmeal was served at 10:30 or 11:00 a.m. and dinner was served\napproximately six hours later.\n Williams was subject to the pilot program from his arrival\nat the prison in July 2015 until the brunch program terminated\nin December 2015, apparently due to cost concerns. During\nthat time, Williams filed multiple grievances complaining that\nthe prison’s food was making him ill. He mainly objected to the\nuse of soy protein, asserting that it caused him stomach pain,\nconstipation, diarrhea, migraine headaches, and excessive gas.\nHe sometimes added in his grievances that he received only\n1600 calories per day or fewer than 2800 calories per day, and\nrequested that he be served breakfast.1 He also com\n\n1\n Williams asserts that the Department’s own regulations require that\nprisoners receive 2800 calories per day, citing Hall v. Sutton, 2012 WL\n407244 (S.D. Ill. Feb. 8, 2012). In that case, the inmate plaintiff alleged in his\ncomplaint that Department policy required a menu providing 2800 calories\nper day. The court assumed that number to be correct for the purposes of\n (continued...)\n\f4 No. 18-2439\n\nplained that nurses on medical call mistreated him, and that\nthe prison’s physician refused to prescribe a soy-free diet and\nwould not provide medical tests that Williams believed he\nneeded. The primary relief that he sought was the cessation of\nthe soy-based diet, thyroid testing and money damages, but he\nsometimes requested that he be served three meals per day and\nmore calories.\n His grievances were not resolved to his satisfaction and he\nfiled suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against Food Service Admin-\nistrator Suzann Bailey, Warden Jacqueline Lashbrook, Depart-\nment Director John Baldwin, and Dr. Vipin Shah, the prison’s\ndoctor. Williams asserted that: (1) Baldwin, Bailey and\nLashbrook violated his Eighth Amendment rights by serving\nhim soy-based meals that made him ill; (2) Shah violated his\nEighth Amendment rights through deliberate indifference to\nhis serious medical needs; and (3) Baldwin, Bailey and\nLashbrook violated his Eighth Amendment rights by institut-\ning a nutritionally inadequate brunch program. The district\ncourt granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants.\nWilliams appeals.\n\n\n\n1\n (...continued)\nassessing whether the complaint stated a claim upon which relief could be\ngranted. Current Department regulations provide that, “Food must be of\nsufficient nutritional value and provide a minimum of 1,800 to 2,000\ncalories for adults and 2,500 to 3,000 calories for juveniles per day.” 20 Ill.\nAdmin. Code 701.110 (a)(1). Williams does not assert that he is a juvenile.\nIn any case, section 1983 protects plaintiffs from constitutional violations,\nnot violations of state law or departmental regulations. Thompson v. City of\nChicago, 472 F.3d 444, 454 (7th Cir. 2006).\n\fNo. 18-2439 5\n\n II.\n On appeal, Williams challenges the judgment only as it\nrelates to the brunch program count against defendants\nBaldwin, Bailey and Lashbrook.2 We review the district court's\ngrant of summary judgment de novo, examining the record in\nthe light most favorable to the plaintiff and construing all\nreasonable inferences from the evidence in his favor. Anderson\nv. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986); Lapre v. City of\nChicago, 911 F.3d 424, 430 (7th Cir. 2018). Summary judgment\nis appropriate when there are no genuine disputes of material\nfact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.\nFed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247–48; Lapre, 911 F.3d\nat 430.\n “A prison official’s ‘deliberate indifference’ to a substantial\nrisk of serious harm to an inmate violates the Eighth Amend-\nment.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 828 (1994). The Eighth\nAmendment places both restraints and duties on prison\nofficials, and one of those duties is to ensure that inmates\nreceive adequate food. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 832. In order for a\nprison official to be liable under the Eighth Amendment, two\nrequirements must be met. First, the inmate must demonstrate\nthat the deprivation suffered was, objectively, “sufficiently\nserious.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834 (quoting Wilson v. Seiter, 501\nU.S. 294, 298 (1991)). That is, the prison official’s act or omis-\nsion must result in the denial of the minimal civilized measure\n\n2\n Williams has therefore waived any challenge to the judgment as it relates\nto the claim related to soy protein and the claim against Dr. Shah, and we\nneed not address either claim again. Dr. Shah was not named as a defendant\nin the brunch program count.\n\f6 No. 18-2439\n\nof life’s necessities. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834; Wilson, 501 U.S. at\n298. We have recognized that, in some circumstances, the\nwithholding of food may be sufficiently serious to satisfy the\nobjective component of the Farmer test. Reed v. McBride, 178\nF.3d 849, 853 (7th Cir. 1999). See also Jaros v. Illinois Dep’t of\nCorrections, 684 F.3d 667, 670 (7th Cir. 2012) (adequate food is\namong the minimal civilized measures of life’s necessities);\nMays v. Springborn, 575 F.3d 643, 648 (7th Cir. 2009) (under the\nEighth Amendment, a prisoner’s diet must provide adequate\nnutrition). To assess whether the particular withholding of\nfood meets Farmer’s objective prong, a “court must assess the\namount and duration of the deprivation.” Reed, 178 F.3d at 853.\nSee also Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724, 734 (7th Cir. 2001)\n(noting that the withholding of food can in some circumstances\nmeet the objective prong of Farmer depending on the amount\nand duration of the deprivation, as well as the medical condi-\ntion of the inmate).\n Second, the inmate must demonstrate that the prison\nofficial had a sufficiently culpable state of mind. In a case\ninvolving prison conditions, that state of mind is deliberate\nindifference to inmate health or safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834.\nThe Supreme Court adopted a subjective test for defining\ndeliberate indifference in such cases:\n We hold instead that a prison official cannot be\n found liable under the Eighth Amendment for\n denying an inmate humane conditions of confine-\n ment unless the official knows of and disregards an\n excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official\n must both be aware of facts from which the infer-\n\fNo. 18-2439 7\n\n ence could be drawn that a substantial risk of seri-\n ous harm exists, and he must also draw the infer-\n ence.\nFarmer, 511 U.S. at 837. Thus, Williams must provide evidence\nthat Bailey, Lashbrook and Baldwin knew that the brunch\nprogram was nutritionally deficient, or that inmates were\nbeing served nutritionally inadequate meals regardless of the\nrequirements of the brunch program.3\n We may affirm summary judgment on any basis we find in\nthe record. Nature Conservancy v. Wilder Corp. of Delaware, 656\nF.3d 646, 653 (7th Cir. 2011). Williams asserts both that the\nbrunch program as designed failed to provide sufficient\nnutrition, and that he was being served meals that did not meet\nthe requirements of the program as designed.4 But the record\n\n\n3\n Throughout the remainder of this opinion, we use phrases such as\n“nutritionally deficient” or “nutritionally inadequate” as shorthand for\nmeals deficient enough to pose a substantial risk of serious harm, as\ndetermined by the objective test of Farmer. For Williams’ claim that he was\nnot receiving the meals described in the brunch program Master Menus, we\nneed not decide here whether the meals that the prison served Williams met\nFarmer’s objective standard because we instead decide that issue on Farmer’s\nsubjective prong.\n\n4\n Although it is not entirely clear that Williams contests the constitutional-\nity of the brunch program as designed, for the sake of completeness, we\naddress that claim. In the district court, Williams both attacked the plan as\ndesigned and also asserted that he was “not seeking to prove Bailey is\nunqualified to create a menu that is nutritionally balanced, but a question\nexists as to what was actually fed to Williams.” He further stated that,\nalthough Bailey may have designed a nutritional menu, the food served did\n (continued...)\n\f8 No. 18-2439\n\nestablishes without contradiction that the program was\nadequate as designed, which defeats his first theory of the case\nunder the objective part of the Farmer test. And he also fails to\npresent evidence that any of the defendants knew that he was\nnot receiving adequate nutrition, dooming his other claim\nunder the subjective prong of Farmer.\n The only evidence in the record regarding the nutritional\nsufficiency of the brunch program Master Menus comes from\nBailey, a licensed dietician. Bailey attached the Master Menus\nfor 2015 to her affidavit. She averred that the two-meal brunch\nmenus supplied 2200 to 2400 calories per day, the same\nnumber of calories provided in the regular three-meal menu\nplans. She opined that the brunch plan that she designed\nwould be nutritionally adequate for a person not in need of a\nspecial diet for medical reasons. Williams does not assert that\nhe required a special diet for medical reasons. Importantly,\nWilliams supplied no evidence challenging the nutritional\nvalue of the brunch program Master Menus as designed. At\noral argument, counsel for the plaintiff candidly conceded that\nhe was unaware of any evidence in the record that the Master\nMenus themselves were nutritionally inadequate. Oral\nArgument, at 4:43–4:52. In the face of Bailey’s affidavit and the\n\n\n4\n (...continued)\nnot meet the requirements of the menu. R. 97-2, at 8. He also took Bailey to\ntask for failing to implement procedures to ensure that the menus were\nimplemented as designed. But he cites no evidence in the record supporting\na claim that Bailey failed to ensure that the plan was followed, or even\nevidence that it was her responsibility to do so. On the contrary, Bailey’s\naffidavit states that it was the responsibility of Dietary Managers to\nimplement her plan.\n\fNo. 18-2439 9\n\nmenu plans themselves, the record is devoid of any evidence\nthat the planned meals were deficient. On this record, Williams\nhas failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact\nregarding a substantial risk of serious harm from the brunch\nprogram as designed. That claim thus fails under Farmer’s\nobjective standard because the record establishes without\ndispute that the plan was formulated to provide adequate\nnutrition.\n Williams also asserts, however, that the prison did not\nserve the planned meals required by the Master Menus, and\nthat he received less food and fewer calories than Bailey\nplanned for the brunch program. He averred that he “com-\nmonly” did not receive eight ounces of protein or five servings\nof fruits and vegetables, and he testified that he instead\nreceived 1500 or 1600 calories per day. But he has failed to\nproduce any evidence that the named defendants were aware\nthat he was not receiving the amount of food or the types of\nfood that Bailey’s Master Menus prescribed. Williams con-\nceded that he never conveyed his complaints to Bailey. R. 83-1,\nat 119. Because the Dietary Managers at the individual facilities\nwere responsible for implementing the Master Menus that she\ndesigned, Bailey had no way of knowing that prisoners at\nPinckneyville allegedly were not receiving 2200 to 2400\ncalories, including eight ounces of protein and five servings of\nfruits and vegetables daily.\n Williams asserts that Warden Lashbrook and Director\nBaldwin were aware that prisoners at Pinckneyville were not\nreceiving enough food, citing his deposition testimony that he\n“continuously complained of migraines, restlessness and lack\nof energy due to the inadequate number of calories he was\n\f10 No. 18-2439\n\neating on a daily basis.” Brief at 15. But those cited passages of\nWilliams’ deposition reveal only that he complained to certain\nnurses and to Dr. Shah about the brunch program, not to\nWarden Lashbrook or Director Baldwin.5 He also cites his\naffidavit in which he asserts that he commonly did not receive\neight ounces of protein or five servings of vegetables per day,\nbut he does not aver that he told the Warden or the Director\nabout these deficiencies.\n Neither the Warden nor the Director may be held liable\nunless they had some personal involvement in the alleged\nconstitutional deprivation. Consolino v. Towne, 872 F.3d 825, 832\n(7th Cir. 2017); Matz v. Klotka, 769 F.3d 517, 528 (7th Cir. 2014).\nPrison officials may satisfy the personal responsibility require-\nment of section 1983 if the conduct causing the constitutional\ndeprivation occurs at the official’s direction or with his or her\nknowledge and consent. Gentry v. Duckworth, 65 F.3d 555, 561\n(7th Cir. 1995). See also Doyle v. Camelot Care Centers, Inc., 305\nF.3d 603, 614–15 (7th Cir. 2002) (to be held liable under section\n1983, a supervisory official must have had personal involve-\nment in the constitutional deprivation, essentially directing or\n\n\n5\n Williams does not cite or rely on the numerous grievances that he filed as\nevidence that the defendants knew that inmates were being served a\nnutritionally inadequate diet. The grievances, copies of which were\npurportedly sent to the Warden and the Director, focused almost exclu-\nsively on Williams’ objections to the soy content of the prison diet, a claim\nthat he has waived on appeal. He also sometimes mentioned in the\ngrievances that he believed he was not receiving adequate nutrition or\ncalories, but because he has not cited or relied on those documents on\nappeal, we will not consider them in determining whether the defendants\nwere aware that he was being denied adequate nutrition.\n\fNo. 18-2439 11\n\nconsenting to the challenged conduct). But even if we assume\nfor the sake of argument that the Warden and Director were\ninvolved in enacting the brunch program (Williams offers no\nevidence regarding who was responsible for the decision), we\nhave already determined that there is no evidence that the\nbrunch program as designed was deficient. Because the\nWarden and Director did not know that the inmates were\nbeing deprived of adequate nutrition and were not personally\ninvolved in delivering the purportedly deficient meals, they\nmay not be held liable under section 1983.\n Finally, at oral argument, Williams cited the last paragraph\nof his affidavit as evidence that the Warden was aware that the\nprison provided inadequate nutrition and that the prescribed\nmeal plan was not being followed. That passage states:\n During my incarceration at Pinckneyville, I received\n information from Warden Lashbrook who stated\n that she believed the brunch program constituted a\n violation of Eighth Amendment rights.\nR. 97-4, at 2. In the district court, Williams cited this passage as\nsupport for a claim that “in a conversation with Lashbrook,\nWilliams learned Lashbrook believed the brunch program was\ndiscontinued because of a ruling indicating it violated inmate’s\nrights.” R. 97-2, at 18. Although Williams characterizes his\naffidavit as evidence of a conversation with Lashbrook, the\naffidavit itself is vague on that point. We have no context\nexplaining how Williams “received information” regarding a\nstatement from the Warden or when this statement occurred.\nIn any case, even if we assume that Warden Lashbrook told\nWilliams that the program was discontinued because of a\n\f12 No. 18-2439\n\nruling indicating that it violated prisoner’s rights, this state-\nment is nothing more than a conveyance of a legal conclusion\nmade by an unidentified source. At most, the statement\ndemonstrates that the Warden learned after the termination of\nthe program that some unnamed person considered it constitu-\ntionally infirm. The Warden’s understanding of the reason for\nthe termination of the brunch program tells us nothing\nregarding whether she knew that the Dietary Manager or\nprison kitchen staff were not complying with the brunch\nprogram as designed but were instead serving nutritionally\ninadequate meals while the program was in place.\n In sum, the record establishes without dispute that the\nbrunch program as designed was nutritionally adequate, and\nso Williams fails on that claim to meet the objective component\nof the Farmer test. And he also lacks evidence that any of the\nnamed defendants were aware that subordinate prison staff\nwere not serving the brunch Master Menus as designed but\nwere instead providing inadequate amounts of food to the\nprisoners. That lack of knowledge forecloses any claim against\nthe defendants under the subjective part of the Farmer test. The\njudgment of the district court is therefore\n AFFIRMED.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Leonte WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Vipin SHAH, Suzann Bailey, John Baldwin, and Jacqueline Lashbrook, Defendants-Appellees.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-06-12\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\nNo. 18-2439\\n\\nLEONTE WILLIAMS,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n\\n v.\\n\\n\\nVIPIN SHAH, SUZANN BAILEY,\\nJOHN BALDWIN, and JACQUELINE\\nLASHBROOK,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Southern District of Illinois.\\n No. 3:15-cv-1278-SMY-RJD — Staci M. Yandle, Judge.\\n\\n\\n\\n ARGUED MARCH 26, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 12, 2019\\n\\n\\n Before BAUER, ROVNER, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\\n ROVNER, Circuit Judge. Leonte Williams, an inmate in the\\ncustody of the Illinois Department of Corrections, sued a\\nnumber of prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that\\nthey violated his Eighth Amendment rights by providing\\n\\f2 No. 18-2439\\n\\ninadequate nutrition through a “brunch” program that served\\nonly two meals a day. The district court granted summary\\njudgment in favor of the defendants. Because the record\\nestablishes without dispute that the brunch program was\\nadequate as designed and also because Williams lacks evidence\\nthat any of the defendants knew that he was allegedly not\\nreceiving adequate nutrition, we affirm.\\n I.\\n During the relevant time period, Williams was incarcerated\\nat Pinckneyville Correctional Center in southern Illinois.\\nDuring four or five months of Williams’ stay at Pinckneyville,\\nthe facility participated in a pilot “brunch” program designed\\nby Suzann Bailey, a licensed dietician and the Food Service\\nAdministrator for the Illinois Department of Corrections\\n(“Department”). Prior to the brunch program, Illinois prisons\\nused a regular meal plan that consisted of three meals per day,\\nwith “Master Menus” formulated by Bailey to provide approx-\\nimately 2200 to 2400 calories per day, including a minimum of\\nsix ounces of protein per day. Dietary Managers at each\\ncorrectional facility in Illinois were required to follow Bailey’s\\nMaster Menus as closely as possible, making substitutions\\nwhen necessary and replacing unavailable items with compa-\\nrable foods.\\n The brunch program provided two meals per day rather\\nthan three, combining breakfast and lunch into a single meal.\\nBailey designed a set of Master Menus for the brunch program\\nthat were formulated to provide the same 2200 to 2400 calories\\nper day as the three-meal plan, including at least eight ounces\\nof protein (a two ounce increase over the regular three-meal\\n\\fNo. 18-2439 3\\n\\nplan), and at least five servings of fruits or vegetables per day.\\nAs with the regular meal plan, Dietary Managers at the\\ncorrectional centers were charged with implementing these\\nMaster Menus as closely as possible, again with allowances for\\nsubstitutions of like items when planned foods were not\\navailable. In Bailey’s professional opinion, two meals contain-\\ning 2200 to 2400 calories, including eight ounces of protein,\\nwould provide adequate nutrition to individuals who were\\notherwise healthy and not in need of specific dietary accommo-\\ndations for medical conditions. For persons having special\\ndietary needs, the Department allowed therapeutic dietary\\ntrays as prescribed by physicians. At Pinckneyville, the brunch\\nmeal was served at 10:30 or 11:00 a.m. and dinner was served\\napproximately six hours later.\\n Williams was subject to the pilot program from his arrival\\nat the prison in July 2015 until the brunch program terminated\\nin December 2015, apparently due to cost concerns. During\\nthat time, Williams filed multiple grievances complaining that\\nthe prison’s food was making him ill. He mainly objected to the\\nuse of soy protein, asserting that it caused him stomach pain,\\nconstipation, diarrhea, migraine headaches, and excessive gas.\\nHe sometimes added in his grievances that he received only\\n1600 calories per day or fewer than 2800 calories per day, and\\nrequested that he be served breakfast.1 He also com\\n\\n1\\n Williams asserts that the Department’s own regulations require that\\nprisoners receive 2800 calories per day, citing Hall v. Sutton, 2012 WL\\n407244 (S.D. Ill. Feb. 8, 2012). In that case, the inmate plaintiff alleged in his\\ncomplaint that Department policy required a menu providing 2800 calories\\nper day. The court assumed that number to be correct for the purposes of\\n (continued...)\\n\\f4 No. 18-2439\\n\\nplained that nurses on medical call mistreated him, and that\\nthe prison’s physician refused to prescribe a soy-free diet and\\nwould not provide medical tests that Williams believed he\\nneeded. The primary relief that he sought was the cessation of\\nthe soy-based diet, thyroid testing and money damages, but he\\nsometimes requested that he be served three meals per day and\\nmore calories.\\n His grievances were not resolved to his satisfaction and he\\nfiled suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against Food Service Admin-\\nistrator Suzann Bailey, Warden Jacqueline Lashbrook, Depart-\\nment Director John Baldwin, and Dr. Vipin Shah, the prison’s\\ndoctor. Williams asserted that: (1) Baldwin, Bailey and\\nLashbrook violated his Eighth Amendment rights by serving\\nhim soy-based meals that made him ill; (2) Shah violated his\\nEighth Amendment rights through deliberate indifference to\\nhis serious medical needs; and (3) Baldwin, Bailey and\\nLashbrook violated his Eighth Amendment rights by institut-\\ning a nutritionally inadequate brunch program. The district\\ncourt granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants.\\nWilliams appeals.\\n\\n\\n\\n1\\n (...continued)\\nassessing whether the complaint stated a claim upon which relief could be\\ngranted. Current Department regulations provide that, “Food must be of\\nsufficient nutritional value and provide a minimum of 1,800 to 2,000\\ncalories for adults and 2,500 to 3,000 calories for juveniles per day.” 20 Ill.\\nAdmin. Code 701.110 (a)(1). Williams does not assert that he is a juvenile.\\nIn any case, section 1983 protects plaintiffs from constitutional violations,\\nnot violations of state law or departmental regulations. Thompson v. City of\\nChicago, 472 F.3d 444, 454 (7th Cir. 2006).\\n\\fNo. 18-2439 5\\n\\n II.\\n On appeal, Williams challenges the judgment only as it\\nrelates to the brunch program count against defendants\\nBaldwin, Bailey and Lashbrook.2 We review the district court's\\ngrant of summary judgment de novo, examining the record in\\nthe light most favorable to the plaintiff and construing all\\nreasonable inferences from the evidence in his favor. Anderson\\nv. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986); Lapre v. City of\\nChicago, 911 F.3d 424, 430 (7th Cir. 2018). Summary judgment\\nis appropriate when there are no genuine disputes of material\\nfact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.\\nFed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247–48; Lapre, 911 F.3d\\nat 430.\\n “A prison official’s ‘deliberate indifference’ to a substantial\\nrisk of serious harm to an inmate violates the Eighth Amend-\\nment.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 828 (1994). The Eighth\\nAmendment places both restraints and duties on prison\\nofficials, and one of those duties is to ensure that inmates\\nreceive adequate food. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 832. In order for a\\nprison official to be liable under the Eighth Amendment, two\\nrequirements must be met. First, the inmate must demonstrate\\nthat the deprivation suffered was, objectively, “sufficiently\\nserious.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834 (quoting Wilson v. Seiter, 501\\nU.S. 294, 298 (1991)). That is, the prison official’s act or omis-\\nsion must result in the denial of the minimal civilized measure\\n\\n2\\n Williams has therefore waived any challenge to the judgment as it relates\\nto the claim related to soy protein and the claim against Dr. Shah, and we\\nneed not address either claim again. Dr. Shah was not named as a defendant\\nin the brunch program count.\\n\\f6 No. 18-2439\\n\\nof life’s necessities. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834; Wilson, 501 U.S. at\\n298. We have recognized that, in some circumstances, the\\nwithholding of food may be sufficiently serious to satisfy the\\nobjective component of the Farmer test. Reed v. McBride, 178\\nF.3d 849, 853 (7th Cir. 1999). See also Jaros v. Illinois Dep’t of\\nCorrections, 684 F.3d 667, 670 (7th Cir. 2012) (adequate food is\\namong the minimal civilized measures of life’s necessities);\\nMays v. Springborn, 575 F.3d 643, 648 (7th Cir. 2009) (under the\\nEighth Amendment, a prisoner’s diet must provide adequate\\nnutrition). To assess whether the particular withholding of\\nfood meets Farmer’s objective prong, a “court must assess the\\namount and duration of the deprivation.” Reed, 178 F.3d at 853.\\nSee also Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724, 734 (7th Cir. 2001)\\n(noting that the withholding of food can in some circumstances\\nmeet the objective prong of Farmer depending on the amount\\nand duration of the deprivation, as well as the medical condi-\\ntion of the inmate).\\n Second, the inmate must demonstrate that the prison\\nofficial had a sufficiently culpable state of mind. In a case\\ninvolving prison conditions, that state of mind is deliberate\\nindifference to inmate health or safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834.\\nThe Supreme Court adopted a subjective test for defining\\ndeliberate indifference in such cases:\\n We hold instead that a prison official cannot be\\n found liable under the Eighth Amendment for\\n denying an inmate humane conditions of confine-\\n ment unless the official knows of and disregards an\\n excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official\\n must both be aware of facts from which the infer-\\n\\fNo. 18-2439 7\\n\\n ence could be drawn that a substantial risk of seri-\\n ous harm exists, and he must also draw the infer-\\n ence.\\nFarmer, 511 U.S. at 837. Thus, Williams must provide evidence\\nthat Bailey, Lashbrook and Baldwin knew that the brunch\\nprogram was nutritionally deficient, or that inmates were\\nbeing served nutritionally inadequate meals regardless of the\\nrequirements of the brunch program.3\\n We may affirm summary judgment on any basis we find in\\nthe record. Nature Conservancy v. Wilder Corp. of Delaware, 656\\nF.3d 646, 653 (7th Cir. 2011). Williams asserts both that the\\nbrunch program as designed failed to provide sufficient\\nnutrition, and that he was being served meals that did not meet\\nthe requirements of the program as designed.4 But the record\\n\\n\\n3\\n Throughout the remainder of this opinion, we use phrases such as\\n“nutritionally deficient” or “nutritionally inadequate” as shorthand for\\nmeals deficient enough to pose a substantial risk of serious harm, as\\ndetermined by the objective test of Farmer. For Williams’ claim that he was\\nnot receiving the meals described in the brunch program Master Menus, we\\nneed not decide here whether the meals that the prison served Williams met\\nFarmer’s objective standard because we instead decide that issue on Farmer’s\\nsubjective prong.\\n\\n4\\n Although it is not entirely clear that Williams contests the constitutional-\\nity of the brunch program as designed, for the sake of completeness, we\\naddress that claim. In the district court, Williams both attacked the plan as\\ndesigned and also asserted that he was “not seeking to prove Bailey is\\nunqualified to create a menu that is nutritionally balanced, but a question\\nexists as to what was actually fed to Williams.” He further stated that,\\nalthough Bailey may have designed a nutritional menu, the food served did\\n (continued...)\\n\\f8 No. 18-2439\\n\\nestablishes without contradiction that the program was\\nadequate as designed, which defeats his first theory of the case\\nunder the objective part of the Farmer test. And he also fails to\\npresent evidence that any of the defendants knew that he was\\nnot receiving adequate nutrition, dooming his other claim\\nunder the subjective prong of Farmer.\\n The only evidence in the record regarding the nutritional\\nsufficiency of the brunch program Master Menus comes from\\nBailey, a licensed dietician. Bailey attached the Master Menus\\nfor 2015 to her affidavit. She averred that the two-meal brunch\\nmenus supplied 2200 to 2400 calories per day, the same\\nnumber of calories provided in the regular three-meal menu\\nplans. She opined that the brunch plan that she designed\\nwould be nutritionally adequate for a person not in need of a\\nspecial diet for medical reasons. Williams does not assert that\\nhe required a special diet for medical reasons. Importantly,\\nWilliams supplied no evidence challenging the nutritional\\nvalue of the brunch program Master Menus as designed. At\\noral argument, counsel for the plaintiff candidly conceded that\\nhe was unaware of any evidence in the record that the Master\\nMenus themselves were nutritionally inadequate. Oral\\nArgument, at 4:43–4:52. In the face of Bailey’s affidavit and the\\n\\n\\n4\\n (...continued)\\nnot meet the requirements of the menu. R. 97-2, at 8. He also took Bailey to\\ntask for failing to implement procedures to ensure that the menus were\\nimplemented as designed. But he cites no evidence in the record supporting\\na claim that Bailey failed to ensure that the plan was followed, or even\\nevidence that it was her responsibility to do so. On the contrary, Bailey’s\\naffidavit states that it was the responsibility of Dietary Managers to\\nimplement her plan.\\n\\fNo. 18-2439 9\\n\\nmenu plans themselves, the record is devoid of any evidence\\nthat the planned meals were deficient. On this record, Williams\\nhas failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact\\nregarding a substantial risk of serious harm from the brunch\\nprogram as designed. That claim thus fails under Farmer’s\\nobjective standard because the record establishes without\\ndispute that the plan was formulated to provide adequate\\nnutrition.\\n Williams also asserts, however, that the prison did not\\nserve the planned meals required by the Master Menus, and\\nthat he received less food and fewer calories than Bailey\\nplanned for the brunch program. He averred that he “com-\\nmonly” did not receive eight ounces of protein or five servings\\nof fruits and vegetables, and he testified that he instead\\nreceived 1500 or 1600 calories per day. But he has failed to\\nproduce any evidence that the named defendants were aware\\nthat he was not receiving the amount of food or the types of\\nfood that Bailey’s Master Menus prescribed. Williams con-\\nceded that he never conveyed his complaints to Bailey. R. 83-1,\\nat 119. Because the Dietary Managers at the individual facilities\\nwere responsible for implementing the Master Menus that she\\ndesigned, Bailey had no way of knowing that prisoners at\\nPinckneyville allegedly were not receiving 2200 to 2400\\ncalories, including eight ounces of protein and five servings of\\nfruits and vegetables daily.\\n Williams asserts that Warden Lashbrook and Director\\nBaldwin were aware that prisoners at Pinckneyville were not\\nreceiving enough food, citing his deposition testimony that he\\n“continuously complained of migraines, restlessness and lack\\nof energy due to the inadequate number of calories he was\\n\\f10 No. 18-2439\\n\\neating on a daily basis.” Brief at 15. But those cited passages of\\nWilliams’ deposition reveal only that he complained to certain\\nnurses and to Dr. Shah about the brunch program, not to\\nWarden Lashbrook or Director Baldwin.5 He also cites his\\naffidavit in which he asserts that he commonly did not receive\\neight ounces of protein or five servings of vegetables per day,\\nbut he does not aver that he told the Warden or the Director\\nabout these deficiencies.\\n Neither the Warden nor the Director may be held liable\\nunless they had some personal involvement in the alleged\\nconstitutional deprivation. Consolino v. Towne, 872 F.3d 825, 832\\n(7th Cir. 2017); Matz v. Klotka, 769 F.3d 517, 528 (7th Cir. 2014).\\nPrison officials may satisfy the personal responsibility require-\\nment of section 1983 if the conduct causing the constitutional\\ndeprivation occurs at the official’s direction or with his or her\\nknowledge and consent. Gentry v. Duckworth, 65 F.3d 555, 561\\n(7th Cir. 1995). See also Doyle v. Camelot Care Centers, Inc., 305\\nF.3d 603, 614–15 (7th Cir. 2002) (to be held liable under section\\n1983, a supervisory official must have had personal involve-\\nment in the constitutional deprivation, essentially directing or\\n\\n\\n5\\n Williams does not cite or rely on the numerous grievances that he filed as\\nevidence that the defendants knew that inmates were being served a\\nnutritionally inadequate diet. The grievances, copies of which were\\npurportedly sent to the Warden and the Director, focused almost exclu-\\nsively on Williams’ objections to the soy content of the prison diet, a claim\\nthat he has waived on appeal. He also sometimes mentioned in the\\ngrievances that he believed he was not receiving adequate nutrition or\\ncalories, but because he has not cited or relied on those documents on\\nappeal, we will not consider them in determining whether the defendants\\nwere aware that he was being denied adequate nutrition.\\n\\fNo. 18-2439 11\\n\\nconsenting to the challenged conduct). But even if we assume\\nfor the sake of argument that the Warden and Director were\\ninvolved in enacting the brunch program (Williams offers no\\nevidence regarding who was responsible for the decision), we\\nhave already determined that there is no evidence that the\\nbrunch program as designed was deficient. Because the\\nWarden and Director did not know that the inmates were\\nbeing deprived of adequate nutrition and were not personally\\ninvolved in delivering the purportedly deficient meals, they\\nmay not be held liable under section 1983.\\n Finally, at oral argument, Williams cited the last paragraph\\nof his affidavit as evidence that the Warden was aware that the\\nprison provided inadequate nutrition and that the prescribed\\nmeal plan was not being followed. That passage states:\\n During my incarceration at Pinckneyville, I received\\n information from Warden Lashbrook who stated\\n that she believed the brunch program constituted a\\n violation of Eighth Amendment rights.\\nR. 97-4, at 2. In the district court, Williams cited this passage as\\nsupport for a claim that “in a conversation with Lashbrook,\\nWilliams learned Lashbrook believed the brunch program was\\ndiscontinued because of a ruling indicating it violated inmate’s\\nrights.” R. 97-2, at 18. Although Williams characterizes his\\naffidavit as evidence of a conversation with Lashbrook, the\\naffidavit itself is vague on that point. We have no context\\nexplaining how Williams “received information” regarding a\\nstatement from the Warden or when this statement occurred.\\nIn any case, even if we assume that Warden Lashbrook told\\nWilliams that the program was discontinued because of a\\n\\f12 No. 18-2439\\n\\nruling indicating that it violated prisoner’s rights, this state-\\nment is nothing more than a conveyance of a legal conclusion\\nmade by an unidentified source. At most, the statement\\ndemonstrates that the Warden learned after the termination of\\nthe program that some unnamed person considered it constitu-\\ntionally infirm. The Warden’s understanding of the reason for\\nthe termination of the brunch program tells us nothing\\nregarding whether she knew that the Dietary Manager or\\nprison kitchen staff were not complying with the brunch\\nprogram as designed but were instead serving nutritionally\\ninadequate meals while the program was in place.\\n In sum, the record establishes without dispute that the\\nbrunch program as designed was nutritionally adequate, and\\nso Williams fails on that claim to meet the objective component\\nof the Farmer test. And he also lacks evidence that any of the\\nnamed defendants were aware that subordinate prison staff\\nwere not serving the brunch Master Menus as designed but\\nwere instead providing inadequate amounts of food to the\\nprisoners. That lack of knowledge forecloses any claim against\\nthe defendants under the subjective part of the Farmer test. The\\njudgment of the district court is therefore\\n AFFIRMED.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2568,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4628868,"string":"4,628,868"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David TJADER, Defendant-Appellant."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. David Tjader"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-06-12"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-2447"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before KANNE, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"ST. EVE, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18‐2447\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff‐Appellee,\\n v.\\n\\nDAVID TJADER,\\n Defendant‐Appellant.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Western District of Wisconsin.\\n No. 3:17CR00100‐001 — William M. Conley, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED APRIL 24, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 12, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before KANNE, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.\\n ST. EVE, Circuit Judge. In this appeal, David Tjader chal‐\\nlenges several conditions of his supervised release on\\ngrounds he did not raise in the district court. Because he\\nwaived these challenges, we affirm.\\n Tjader purchased child pornography online from sellers in\\nthe Philippines. He asked one seller about recordings of girls\\n\\f2 No. 18‐2447\\n\\nunder 14 years old being tortured, raped, or killed. His con‐\\nduct involved over 250 different pornographic images and\\nvideos of prepubescent girls. Tjader pleaded guilty to one\\ncount of receiving child pornography. See 18 U.S.C.\\n§ 2252(a)(2),(b)(1).\\n A United States probation officer prepared a presentence\\ninvestigation report and a supervision plan. Tjader received a\\ncopy of this plan and confirmed with the district court that,\\nbefore sentencing, he reviewed and understood it. As part of\\nthe plan, the probation officer proposed the following\\nsupervised‐release terms—terms that Tjader now challenges\\non appeal:\\n Condition 1: Defendant shall not leave the judicial\\n district in which defendant is being supervised without the\\n permission of the Court or probation officer.\\n Condition 2: Defendant … shall … follow the [pro‐\\n bation] officer’s instructions … .\\n Condition 11: As directed by the probation officer,\\n defendant shall notify third parties of risks that may be oc‐\\n casioned by defendant’s criminal record or personal history\\n or characteristics … .\\n Condition 12: Provide the supervising U.S. proba‐\\n tion officer any and all requested financial information, in‐\\n cluding copies of state and federal tax returns.\\n Condition 16: As approved by the supervising U.S.\\n Probation Officer, undergo psychosexual evaluations,\\n which may involve use of polygraph examinations. Defend‐\\n ant shall participate in an outpatient sex offender counsel‐\\n ing program if recommended by the evaluator, … .\\n Condition 17: Not meet or spend time with any per‐\\n son under the age of 18 or have verbal, written, telephonic\\n\\fNo. 18‐2447 3\\n\\n or electronic communication with any such person … . This\\n provision does not include persons under the age of 18, such\\n as waiters, cashiers, ticket vendors, etc., with whom defend‐\\n ant must deal in order to obtain ordinary and usual com‐\\n mercial services.\\n Condition 18: Not work in any occupation, business\\n or profession, or participate in any volunteer activity where\\n he has access to children under the age of 18 without the\\n prior approval of the supervising U.S. probation officer.\\n Tjader initially objected to only two of these conditions rel‐\\nevant to this appeal. First, he argued that Condition 12 (re‐\\nquiring that he provide financial information upon request)\\nwas an “excessive intrusion” and “not rationally designed to\\nsupervise him” because his crime was not financial in nature.\\nSecond, he argued that Condition 16 (requiring psychosexual\\nevaluation and potentially counseling) was impermissible to\\nthe extent that it authorized Abel Screening and plethysmo‐\\ngraph examinations (tests that measure sexual interest) and\\npolygraph tests because those tests, he said, must be shown\\nto be reliable under Daubert before they could be used. (Tjader\\nobjected to other conditions as well, but he does not challenge\\nthem on appeal.)\\n The court addressed Tjader’s objections in detail, over‐\\nruled them, and adopted the proposed conditions. The court\\nthen asked Tjader whether it should read and justify the re‐\\nmaining conditions or adopt the supervision plan’s recitation\\nof them and their explanations. Tjader responded that he\\n“waive[d] the reading of any justification of the additional\\nconditions that [he] did not object to.” He also acknowledged\\nthat he reviewed the conditions with counsel and that he un‐\\nderstood them and their justifications. The court sentenced\\n\\f4 No. 18‐2447\\n\\nTjader to seven years in prison and ten years of supervised\\nrelease, and it ordered him to pay restitution.\\n On appeal, Tjader again challenges Condition 12 (the\\nfinancial‐monitoring condition) and Condition 16 (the\\nevaluation and treatment condition), but he does so on new\\ngrounds. For Condition 12, rather than argue as he did in the\\ndistrict court that it is unduly burdensome, he now asserts\\nthat the district court gave inadequate reasons for imposing\\nit. For Condition 16, he now primarily argues that the court\\nimpermissibly delegated its authority to non‐judicial actors.\\nHe also contests other conditions for the first time.\\n We review preserved arguments for abuse of discretion\\nand forfeited ones for plain error. See United States v. Bickart,\\n825 F.3d 832, 839 (7th Cir. 2016). Waived arguments—those\\nthat are intentionally relinquished—we cannot review at all.\\nSee United States v. Bloch, 825 F.3d 862, 873 (7th Cir. 2016).\\n Tjader waived all of his appellate arguments against the\\nsupervisory conditions. When a defendant has received ad‐\\nvanced notice of conditions of supervised release and is in‐\\nvited to object to them in the district court, a “failure to object\\n… can amount to waiver.” United States v. Gabriel, 831 F.3d\\n811, 814 (7th Cir. 2016); see also United States v. Raney, 842 F.3d\\n1041, 1044 (7th Cir. 2016). Tjader had advanced notice of the\\nconditions because they were in the supervision plan, which\\nhe received before sentencing. See United States v. Gumila, 879\\nF.3d 831, 838 (7th Cir. 2018); United States v. Lewis, 823 F.3d\\n1075, 1082 (7th Cir. 2016). The district court also confirmed\\nthat Tjader had time to review them and that he understood\\nthem. See Gumila, 879 F.3d at 838; Bloch, 825 F.3d at 873. And\\nbefore sentencing, when the district court invited Tjader to\\npresent his objections to the conditions, Tjader raised some\\n\\fNo. 18‐2447 5\\n\\nobjections (not raised on appeal), but not others. We may infer\\nfrom his choice to raise these other objections that his decision\\nnot to raise the ones he now advances on appeal was strategic\\nand intentional. See Gumila, 879 F.3d at 838; United States v.\\nRanjel, 872 F.3d 815, 821–22 (7th Cir. 2017). Tjader’s decision\\nto waive an explanation of the remaining conditions—noting\\nthat he understood those conditions and their justifications—\\nconfirmed his intent. See Lewis, 823 F.3d at 1083. This conduct\\nresulted in a waiver of Tjader’s appellate challenges.1\\n Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 1 Tjader argues, and the government agrees, that the mandate to no‐\\ntify “third parties” of “the risks” that his “history” and “characteristics”\\npose is vague. Tjader’s waiver of this point is dispositive. See Raney, 842\\nF.3d at 1044. We do, however, note that Tjader may later seek modification\\nof this condition. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); United States v. Williams, 840 F.3d\\n865 (7th Cir. 2016) (per curiam). As the district court informed Tjader at\\nsentencing, he can ask the court to modify his conditions after he is re‐\\nleased to the extent such modifications are appropriate.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4406121/\", \"author_raw\": \"ST. EVE, Circuit Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"KANNE"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"HAMILTON"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"ST EVE"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"KANNE\": \", Circuit\", \"HAMILTON\": \", Circuit\", \"ST EVE\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4628868/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":6,"string":"6"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David TJADER, Defendant-Appellant.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-06-12\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18‐2447\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n Plaintiff‐Appellee,\n v.\n\nDAVID TJADER,\n Defendant‐Appellant.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Western District of Wisconsin.\n No. 3:17CR00100‐001 — William M. Conley, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED APRIL 24, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 12, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before KANNE, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.\n ST. EVE, Circuit Judge. In this appeal, David Tjader chal‐\nlenges several conditions of his supervised release on\ngrounds he did not raise in the district court. Because he\nwaived these challenges, we affirm.\n Tjader purchased child pornography online from sellers in\nthe Philippines. He asked one seller about recordings of girls\n\f2 No. 18‐2447\n\nunder 14 years old being tortured, raped, or killed. His con‐\nduct involved over 250 different pornographic images and\nvideos of prepubescent girls. Tjader pleaded guilty to one\ncount of receiving child pornography. See 18 U.S.C.\n§ 2252(a)(2),(b)(1).\n A United States probation officer prepared a presentence\ninvestigation report and a supervision plan. Tjader received a\ncopy of this plan and confirmed with the district court that,\nbefore sentencing, he reviewed and understood it. As part of\nthe plan, the probation officer proposed the following\nsupervised‐release terms—terms that Tjader now challenges\non appeal:\n Condition 1: Defendant shall not leave the judicial\n district in which defendant is being supervised without the\n permission of the Court or probation officer.\n Condition 2: Defendant … shall … follow the [pro‐\n bation] officer’s instructions … .\n Condition 11: As directed by the probation officer,\n defendant shall notify third parties of risks that may be oc‐\n casioned by defendant’s criminal record or personal history\n or characteristics … .\n Condition 12: Provide the supervising U.S. proba‐\n tion officer any and all requested financial information, in‐\n cluding copies of state and federal tax returns.\n Condition 16: As approved by the supervising U.S.\n Probation Officer, undergo psychosexual evaluations,\n which may involve use of polygraph examinations. Defend‐\n ant shall participate in an outpatient sex offender counsel‐\n ing program if recommended by the evaluator, … .\n Condition 17: Not meet or spend time with any per‐\n son under the age of 18 or have verbal, written, telephonic\n\fNo. 18‐2447 3\n\n or electronic communication with any such person … . This\n provision does not include persons under the age of 18, such\n as waiters, cashiers, ticket vendors, etc., with whom defend‐\n ant must deal in order to obtain ordinary and usual com‐\n mercial services.\n Condition 18: Not work in any occupation, business\n or profession, or participate in any volunteer activity where\n he has access to children under the age of 18 without the\n prior approval of the supervising U.S. probation officer.\n Tjader initially objected to only two of these conditions rel‐\nevant to this appeal. First, he argued that Condition 12 (re‐\nquiring that he provide financial information upon request)\nwas an “excessive intrusion” and “not rationally designed to\nsupervise him” because his crime was not financial in nature.\nSecond, he argued that Condition 16 (requiring psychosexual\nevaluation and potentially counseling) was impermissible to\nthe extent that it authorized Abel Screening and plethysmo‐\ngraph examinations (tests that measure sexual interest) and\npolygraph tests because those tests, he said, must be shown\nto be reliable under Daubert before they could be used. (Tjader\nobjected to other conditions as well, but he does not challenge\nthem on appeal.)\n The court addressed Tjader’s objections in detail, over‐\nruled them, and adopted the proposed conditions. The court\nthen asked Tjader whether it should read and justify the re‐\nmaining conditions or adopt the supervision plan’s recitation\nof them and their explanations. Tjader responded that he\n“waive[d] the reading of any justification of the additional\nconditions that [he] did not object to.” He also acknowledged\nthat he reviewed the conditions with counsel and that he un‐\nderstood them and their justifications. The court sentenced\n\f4 No. 18‐2447\n\nTjader to seven years in prison and ten years of supervised\nrelease, and it ordered him to pay restitution.\n On appeal, Tjader again challenges Condition 12 (the\nfinancial‐monitoring condition) and Condition 16 (the\nevaluation and treatment condition), but he does so on new\ngrounds. For Condition 12, rather than argue as he did in the\ndistrict court that it is unduly burdensome, he now asserts\nthat the district court gave inadequate reasons for imposing\nit. For Condition 16, he now primarily argues that the court\nimpermissibly delegated its authority to non‐judicial actors.\nHe also contests other conditions for the first time.\n We review preserved arguments for abuse of discretion\nand forfeited ones for plain error. See United States v. Bickart,\n825 F.3d 832, 839 (7th Cir. 2016). Waived arguments—those\nthat are intentionally relinquished—we cannot review at all.\nSee United States v. Bloch, 825 F.3d 862, 873 (7th Cir. 2016).\n Tjader waived all of his appellate arguments against the\nsupervisory conditions. When a defendant has received ad‐\nvanced notice of conditions of supervised release and is in‐\nvited to object to them in the district court, a “failure to object\n… can amount to waiver.” United States v. Gabriel, 831 F.3d\n811, 814 (7th Cir. 2016); see also United States v. Raney, 842 F.3d\n1041, 1044 (7th Cir. 2016). Tjader had advanced notice of the\nconditions because they were in the supervision plan, which\nhe received before sentencing. See United States v. Gumila, 879\nF.3d 831, 838 (7th Cir. 2018); United States v. Lewis, 823 F.3d\n1075, 1082 (7th Cir. 2016). The district court also confirmed\nthat Tjader had time to review them and that he understood\nthem. See Gumila, 879 F.3d at 838; Bloch, 825 F.3d at 873. And\nbefore sentencing, when the district court invited Tjader to\npresent his objections to the conditions, Tjader raised some\n\fNo. 18‐2447 5\n\nobjections (not raised on appeal), but not others. We may infer\nfrom his choice to raise these other objections that his decision\nnot to raise the ones he now advances on appeal was strategic\nand intentional. See Gumila, 879 F.3d at 838; United States v.\nRanjel, 872 F.3d 815, 821–22 (7th Cir. 2017). Tjader’s decision\nto waive an explanation of the remaining conditions—noting\nthat he understood those conditions and their justifications—\nconfirmed his intent. See Lewis, 823 F.3d at 1083. This conduct\nresulted in a waiver of Tjader’s appellate challenges.1\n Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.\n\n\n\n\n 1 Tjader argues, and the government agrees, that the mandate to no‐\ntify “third parties” of “the risks” that his “history” and “characteristics”\npose is vague. Tjader’s waiver of this point is dispositive. See Raney, 842\nF.3d at 1044. We do, however, note that Tjader may later seek modification\nof this condition. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); United States v. Williams, 840 F.3d\n865 (7th Cir. 2016) (per curiam). As the district court informed Tjader at\nsentencing, he can ask the court to modify his conditions after he is re‐\nleased to the extent such modifications are appropriate.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David TJADER, Defendant-Appellant.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-06-12\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18‐2447\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff‐Appellee,\\n v.\\n\\nDAVID TJADER,\\n Defendant‐Appellant.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Western District of Wisconsin.\\n No. 3:17CR00100‐001 — William M. Conley, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED APRIL 24, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 12, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before KANNE, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.\\n ST. EVE, Circuit Judge. In this appeal, David Tjader chal‐\\nlenges several conditions of his supervised release on\\ngrounds he did not raise in the district court. Because he\\nwaived these challenges, we affirm.\\n Tjader purchased child pornography online from sellers in\\nthe Philippines. He asked one seller about recordings of girls\\n\\f2 No. 18‐2447\\n\\nunder 14 years old being tortured, raped, or killed. His con‐\\nduct involved over 250 different pornographic images and\\nvideos of prepubescent girls. Tjader pleaded guilty to one\\ncount of receiving child pornography. See 18 U.S.C.\\n§ 2252(a)(2),(b)(1).\\n A United States probation officer prepared a presentence\\ninvestigation report and a supervision plan. Tjader received a\\ncopy of this plan and confirmed with the district court that,\\nbefore sentencing, he reviewed and understood it. As part of\\nthe plan, the probation officer proposed the following\\nsupervised‐release terms—terms that Tjader now challenges\\non appeal:\\n Condition 1: Defendant shall not leave the judicial\\n district in which defendant is being supervised without the\\n permission of the Court or probation officer.\\n Condition 2: Defendant … shall … follow the [pro‐\\n bation] officer’s instructions … .\\n Condition 11: As directed by the probation officer,\\n defendant shall notify third parties of risks that may be oc‐\\n casioned by defendant’s criminal record or personal history\\n or characteristics … .\\n Condition 12: Provide the supervising U.S. proba‐\\n tion officer any and all requested financial information, in‐\\n cluding copies of state and federal tax returns.\\n Condition 16: As approved by the supervising U.S.\\n Probation Officer, undergo psychosexual evaluations,\\n which may involve use of polygraph examinations. Defend‐\\n ant shall participate in an outpatient sex offender counsel‐\\n ing program if recommended by the evaluator, … .\\n Condition 17: Not meet or spend time with any per‐\\n son under the age of 18 or have verbal, written, telephonic\\n\\fNo. 18‐2447 3\\n\\n or electronic communication with any such person … . This\\n provision does not include persons under the age of 18, such\\n as waiters, cashiers, ticket vendors, etc., with whom defend‐\\n ant must deal in order to obtain ordinary and usual com‐\\n mercial services.\\n Condition 18: Not work in any occupation, business\\n or profession, or participate in any volunteer activity where\\n he has access to children under the age of 18 without the\\n prior approval of the supervising U.S. probation officer.\\n Tjader initially objected to only two of these conditions rel‐\\nevant to this appeal. First, he argued that Condition 12 (re‐\\nquiring that he provide financial information upon request)\\nwas an “excessive intrusion” and “not rationally designed to\\nsupervise him” because his crime was not financial in nature.\\nSecond, he argued that Condition 16 (requiring psychosexual\\nevaluation and potentially counseling) was impermissible to\\nthe extent that it authorized Abel Screening and plethysmo‐\\ngraph examinations (tests that measure sexual interest) and\\npolygraph tests because those tests, he said, must be shown\\nto be reliable under Daubert before they could be used. (Tjader\\nobjected to other conditions as well, but he does not challenge\\nthem on appeal.)\\n The court addressed Tjader’s objections in detail, over‐\\nruled them, and adopted the proposed conditions. The court\\nthen asked Tjader whether it should read and justify the re‐\\nmaining conditions or adopt the supervision plan’s recitation\\nof them and their explanations. Tjader responded that he\\n“waive[d] the reading of any justification of the additional\\nconditions that [he] did not object to.” He also acknowledged\\nthat he reviewed the conditions with counsel and that he un‐\\nderstood them and their justifications. The court sentenced\\n\\f4 No. 18‐2447\\n\\nTjader to seven years in prison and ten years of supervised\\nrelease, and it ordered him to pay restitution.\\n On appeal, Tjader again challenges Condition 12 (the\\nfinancial‐monitoring condition) and Condition 16 (the\\nevaluation and treatment condition), but he does so on new\\ngrounds. For Condition 12, rather than argue as he did in the\\ndistrict court that it is unduly burdensome, he now asserts\\nthat the district court gave inadequate reasons for imposing\\nit. For Condition 16, he now primarily argues that the court\\nimpermissibly delegated its authority to non‐judicial actors.\\nHe also contests other conditions for the first time.\\n We review preserved arguments for abuse of discretion\\nand forfeited ones for plain error. See United States v. Bickart,\\n825 F.3d 832, 839 (7th Cir. 2016). Waived arguments—those\\nthat are intentionally relinquished—we cannot review at all.\\nSee United States v. Bloch, 825 F.3d 862, 873 (7th Cir. 2016).\\n Tjader waived all of his appellate arguments against the\\nsupervisory conditions. When a defendant has received ad‐\\nvanced notice of conditions of supervised release and is in‐\\nvited to object to them in the district court, a “failure to object\\n… can amount to waiver.” United States v. Gabriel, 831 F.3d\\n811, 814 (7th Cir. 2016); see also United States v. Raney, 842 F.3d\\n1041, 1044 (7th Cir. 2016). Tjader had advanced notice of the\\nconditions because they were in the supervision plan, which\\nhe received before sentencing. See United States v. Gumila, 879\\nF.3d 831, 838 (7th Cir. 2018); United States v. Lewis, 823 F.3d\\n1075, 1082 (7th Cir. 2016). The district court also confirmed\\nthat Tjader had time to review them and that he understood\\nthem. See Gumila, 879 F.3d at 838; Bloch, 825 F.3d at 873. And\\nbefore sentencing, when the district court invited Tjader to\\npresent his objections to the conditions, Tjader raised some\\n\\fNo. 18‐2447 5\\n\\nobjections (not raised on appeal), but not others. We may infer\\nfrom his choice to raise these other objections that his decision\\nnot to raise the ones he now advances on appeal was strategic\\nand intentional. See Gumila, 879 F.3d at 838; United States v.\\nRanjel, 872 F.3d 815, 821–22 (7th Cir. 2017). Tjader’s decision\\nto waive an explanation of the remaining conditions—noting\\nthat he understood those conditions and their justifications—\\nconfirmed his intent. See Lewis, 823 F.3d at 1083. This conduct\\nresulted in a waiver of Tjader’s appellate challenges.1\\n Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 1 Tjader argues, and the government agrees, that the mandate to no‐\\ntify “third parties” of “the risks” that his “history” and “characteristics”\\npose is vague. Tjader’s waiver of this point is dispositive. See Raney, 842\\nF.3d at 1044. We do, however, note that Tjader may later seek modification\\nof this condition. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); United States v. Williams, 840 F.3d\\n865 (7th Cir. 2016) (per curiam). As the district court informed Tjader at\\nsentencing, he can ask the court to modify his conditions after he is re‐\\nleased to the extent such modifications are appropriate.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2569,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4628869,"string":"4,628,869"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Shirley Lacko v. United of Omaha Life Insurance"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-06-12"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-2155"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before BAUER, ROVNER, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Ilana Kara Diamond Rovner\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18‐2155\\nSHIRLEY LACKO,\\n Plaintiff‐Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nUNITED OF OMAHA LIFE\\nINSURANCE COMPANY,\\n Defendant‐Appellee.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 1:17‐cv‐02100 — Jorge L. Alonso, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED NOVEMBER 5, 2018 — DECIDED JUNE 12, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before BAUER, ROVNER, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.\\n ROVNER, Circuit Judge. Shirley Lacko filed suit against\\nUnited of Omaha Life Insurance Company (“United”), chal‐\\nlenging United’s denial of her claims for short‐term and long‐\\nterm disability insurance. Those claims were brought pursu‐\\nant to group insurance policies issued by United to her em‐\\nployer, BKD, Inc., an accounting firm. Specifically, BKD pro‐\\n\\f2 No. 18‐2155\\n\\nvided two group insurance policies, Group Short Term Disa‐\\nbility Insurance Policy No. GUC‐ABF3 (the “STD” plan) and\\nthe Group Long Term Disability Insurance Policy No. GLTD‐\\nABF3 (the “LTD” plan). Both policies were issued by United,\\nwho also served as the claims review fiduciary for claims to\\nSTD and LTD benefits.\\n Lacko based her claims for STD and LTD benefits on the\\nadverse combination of a number of impairments, including\\nbut not limited to gastroparesis, diabetes, rheumatoid arthri‐\\ntis, congestive heart failure, breathing difficulties, anxiety,\\nmusculoskeletal impairments, and cognitive difficulties re‐\\nlated in part to the medication needed to manage the other\\nconditions. The district court opinion details the extensive\\nmedical evidence presented to United in support of Lacko’s\\ndisability benefits claims. It includes reports from numerous\\nphysicians, as well as objective evidence such as MRI, X‐ray,\\nand lab reports. An exhaustive recitation of that evidence,\\nhowever, is unnecessary to resolve the issues presented in this\\ncase. Therefore, we will set forth the evidence only to the ex‐\\ntent that it is necessary to decide the issues in this appeal and\\ndefer to the district court the more extensive recitation.\\n Although United initially approved her claims for STD\\nbenefits on three occasions for the time period spanning Oc‐\\ntober 12, 2015 through November 22, 2015, it denied STD ben‐\\nefits on June 16, 2016 for the period beyond November 22,\\n2015, concluding the records failed to demonstrate a change\\nin Lacko’s medical condition at the time she stopped working\\nor subsequently. United also denied her claim for LTD bene‐\\nfits. Lacko then filed this action in the district court under the\\nEmployee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA),\\n29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., challenging the denial of LTD benefits,\\n\\fNo. 18‐2155 3\\n\\nand the denial of STD benefits from the period of November\\n22, 2015 until December 27, 2015 (at which time LTD benefits\\nwould apply). The district court granted summary judgment\\nin favor of United, and Lacko now appeals that decision to\\nthis court.\\n I.\\n Lacko began working for the predecessor to BKD in ap‐\\nproximately January 1999 and worked until September 25,\\n2015. She applied for benefits under the STD plan on October\\n2, 2015. At the time that she ceased working, her position at\\nBKD was that of Senior Manager in the Audit Department,\\nwith an annual salary of $93,250.04.\\n The two disability plans covered different time periods.\\nThe first 90 days of disability are covered by the STD plan,\\nwhich in relevant part provides benefits when ,“because of an\\nInjury or Sickness, a significant change in Your mental or\\nphysical functional capacity has occurred in which: … You\\nare prevented from performing the Material Duties of Your\\nRegular Job (on a part‐time or full‐time basis) or are unable to\\nwork Full‐Time … .” STD Plan at 27. The STD plan defines\\n“Material Duties” as encompassing “the essential tasks, func‐\\ntions, and operations relating to Your Regular Job that cannot\\nbe reasonably omitted or modified,” and “Regular Job” is de‐\\nfined as “the occupation You are routinely performing when\\nYour Disability begins.” Id. at 28–29.\\n The LTD plan applies beyond that 90‐day period and in‐\\ncludes slightly different requirements. Instead of speaking in\\nterms of the claimant’s ability to perform her regular job, the\\nLTD plan provides benefits when the claimant is incapable of\\n\\f4 No. 18‐2155\\n\\nthe material duties of her regular occupation. Specifically, the\\nLTD plan provides:\\n Disability and Disabled means that because of\\n an Injury or Sickness, a significant change in\\n your mental or physical functional capacity has\\n occurred in which You are:\\n (a) prevented from performing at least\\n one of the Material Duties of Your Regu‐\\n lar Occupation on a part‐time or full‐time\\n basis; and\\n (b) unable to generate Current Earnings\\n which exceed 99% of Your Basic Monthly\\n Earnings due to that same Injury or Sick‐\\n ness. …\\n Material Duties means the essential tasks, func‐\\n tions, and operations relating to an occupation\\n that cannot be reasonably omitted or modified.\\n In no event will We consider working an aver‐\\n age of more than 40 hours per week in itself to\\n be part of material duties. One of the material\\n duties of Your Regular Occupation is the ability\\n to work for an employer on a full‐time basis. …\\n Regular Occupation means the occupation You\\n are routinely performing when Your Disability\\n begins. Your regular occupation is not limited to\\n the specific position You held with the Policy‐\\n holder, but will instead be considered to be a\\n similar position or activity based on job descrip‐\\n tions included in the most current edition of the\\n\\fNo. 18‐2155 5\\n\\n U.S. Department of Labor Dictionary of Occu‐\\n pational Titles (DOT). We have the right to sub‐\\n stitute or replace the DOT with a service or\\n other information that We determine of compa‐\\n rable purpose, with or without notice. To deter‐\\n mine Your regular occupation, We will look at\\n Your occupation as it is normally performed in\\n the national economy, instead of how work\\n tasks are performed for the specific employer, at\\n a specific location, or in a specific area or region.\\nLTD Plan at 29–31.\\n Therefore, Lacko’s entitlement to benefits under the LTD\\nplan hinges upon whether Lacko was capable of fulfilling the\\nmaterial duties of her regular occupation. That focus on her\\noccupation sets the stage for a major point of contention in\\nthis appeal, which is whether United used an appropriate oc‐\\ncupational classification in determining her eligibility for ben‐\\nefits. As we will explore in detail later, United classified her\\nposition as that of a Department Manager under the Diction‐\\nary of Occupational Titles (“DOT”), but the Social Security\\nAdministration (SSA) used a different DOT title in assessing\\nLacko’s claim for benefits, classifying her position as that of\\nan Auditor or Accountant.\\n After Lacko’s requests for STD and LTD benefits were de‐\\nnied, Lacko requested reconsideration of those determina‐\\ntions from United. With respect to the STD benefits claim,\\nUnited in that appeal considered the evidence as to her gas‐\\ntroparesis, back pain, and osteoarthritis, and determined that\\nshe was capable of performing the duties of her job.\\n\\f6 No. 18‐2155\\n\\n In appealing the denial of LTD benefits, Lacko provided\\nUnited with the SSA decision granting benefits, but United\\nagain determined that the denial of LTD benefits was appro‐\\npriate. In its determination denying that appeal regarding\\nLTD benefits, United stated that it had considered her claim\\nthat she was disabled due to chronic pain, fatigue, congestive\\nheart failure, hypertension, osteoarthritis, diabetes, asthma,\\ngastroparesis, sleep disturbance, vertigo, vitamin D defi‐\\nciency, anxiety and depression. United acknowledged that\\nthe file revealed a history of back pain and diffuse joint pain\\ncomplaints, and that MRI studies of the lumbar, thoracic, and\\ncervical spine documented multi‐level degenerative changes\\nwith disc bulging in some areas. Additionally, it noted that\\nX‐rays confirmed arthropathy in Lacko’s hands and feet. Ac‐\\ncordingly, United determined that she would be restricted to\\nsedentary work activities and should pursue continued treat‐\\nment for pain management. It also found that her obstructive\\nsleep apnea and the resulting fatigue could also support that\\nlimitation to sedentary work, and opined that her chronic ob‐\\nstructive pulmonary disease and asthma would not preclude\\nsedentary work activities. Although it recognized other med‐\\nical conditions, it did not find that they supported any further\\nlimitations. For instance, it recognized that she suffered from\\ndiabetes, but held that her diabetes was controlled with treat‐\\nment and regular visits to her endocrinologist and therefore\\nwould not require any restrictions or limitations. It also\\nacknowledged that she was diagnosed with chronic gastritis\\nand with gastroparesis due to diabetes requiring treatment\\nwith medications. United found no limitations related to her\\nvertigo or dizziness, or from cardiac conditions or hyperten‐\\nsion. Finally, United recognized that symptoms of anxiety,\\ndepression and memory loss had been reported. It held that\\n\\fNo. 18‐2155 7\\n\\nthere was no indication of an inability to perform the activities\\nof daily living or of cognitive issues or memory impairment\\nto preclude work activities. United noted that Lacko was eval‐\\nuated by Dr. Steven Fritz, Psy.D., for a mental residual func‐\\ntional capacity assessment as a part of the Social Security re‐\\nview, and it stated that the evaluation found no evidence of\\nmemory impairment or cognitive impairment. United\\nacknowledged that Lacko has multiple medical complaints\\nrequiring medication and regular visits to health providers,\\nbut tracking the language of the LTD plan, it held that it did\\nnot find evidence of a significant change in her physical or\\nmental functional capacity on or around her last date worked\\nto preclude her from continuing to perform the material du‐\\nties of her regular occupation. It conceded that she had been\\nfound disabled by the SSA and was receiving disability bene‐\\nfits but held that the SSA decision did not affect its disability\\ndetermination, stating only that “[e]ligibility requirements for\\nSocial Security Disability may differ from the eligibility re‐\\nquirements under this policy.”\\n II.\\n Lacko subsequently filed this ERISA action seeking STD\\nbenefits from November 22, 2015 through December 27, 2015,\\nand LTD benefits thereafter, under § 502 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C.\\n§ 1132(a)(1)(B), which provides that “[a] civil action may be\\nbrought … by a participant or beneficiary … to recover bene‐\\nfits due to him under the terms of his plan, to enforce his\\nrights under the terms of the plan, or to clarify his rights to\\nfuture benefits under the terms of the plan.” The district court\\ngranted summary judgment to United.\\n First, the court considered the decision as to STD benefits.\\nIt held that United denied STD benefits on the basis that there\\n\\f8 No. 18‐2155\\n\\nhad been no change in Lacko’s functional capacity that would\\nprevent her from performing her job. The court found that it\\nwas reasonable for United to focus on whether Lacko had ex‐\\nperienced a change in medical symptoms, because the plain\\nlanguage of the STD plan requires a change. According to the\\ncourt, when Lacko was first granted STD benefits by United,\\nit had received medical records from April 2015 that showed\\nLacko was “feeling good,” and records from September 2015\\nshowing that Lacko reported feeling pain all over, thus indi‐\\ncating a “change.” Subsequently, United received additional\\nmedical records which showed that Lacko had suffered gas‐\\ntroparesis since at least 2011, and degenerative disc disease\\nfrom at least 2013, and evidence that she had taken opiates for\\npain for a decade. The court held that “[g]iven that plaintiff’s\\nmedical conditions were of long duration, it was reasonable\\nfor defendant to conclude that plaintiff had not experienced a\\nchange in functional capacity.” Dist. Ct. Memorandum and\\nOrder of May 15, 2018 (hereinafter “Dist. Ct.”) at 20.\\n The court then turned to United’s denial of LTD benefits.\\nFirst, it held that United did not err in relying on the DOT for\\nher job description, because the LTD plan explicitly allows for\\nsuch an approach. The court also rejected the argument that\\nUnited erred in relying on the opinions of non‐examining\\nphysicians. The court noted that Lacko supplied medical rec‐\\nords from eight treating physicians, but six of them described\\nonly Lacko’s symptoms and diagnoses without translating\\nthose into work restrictions. Of the two doctors that described\\nwork restrictions, the court described one—Dr. Daniel\\nHirsen—as providing useful but imprecise information in\\nstating that Lacko was unable to sit for long periods of time\\ndue to neck and back pain and unable to do computer work\\ndue to joint swelling. The other doctor who identified work\\n\\fNo. 18‐2155 9\\n\\nrestrictions, Dr. Vanessa Hagan, checked boxes indiscrimi‐\\nnately, indicating that pain rendered her unable to perform\\nevery task on the list including basic tasks such as following\\nrules and relating to co‐workers. The court acknowledged\\nthat Dr. Hagan subsequently provided additional infor‐\\nmation about Lacko’s restrictions, stating that Lacko’s pain\\nmedication makes it difficult for her to focus such that she\\ncould not work if she took her medications as prescribed. The\\ncourt countered, however, that “[s]eparately and to the con‐\\ntrary, the Social Security Administration concluded that\\nplaintiff was capable of performing light‐duty work.” Id. at\\n23. Based on the competing conclusions and the imprecise re‐\\nstrictions, the court concluded that it was reasonable for\\nUnited to seek review of the records by non‐examining phy‐\\nsicians and adopt their conclusions that she was restricted to\\nsedentary work.\\n The court next considered whether United properly con‐\\nsidered her various ailments in combination when determin‐\\ning her restrictions. The court noted that the treating physi‐\\ncians had determined that her physical ailments limited her\\nto sedentary work. The court noted, however, that the seden‐\\ntary restriction related only to her physical capability, and\\nthat Dr. Hagan had noted, in describing the combined effect\\nof Lacko’s ailments, that the medications for those conditions\\naffected Lacko’s ability to focus. The court rejected Lacko’s ar‐\\ngument that United failed to take that mental impairment into\\naccount. The court noted that in its decision, United specifi‐\\ncally recognized that Lacko had seen Dr. Fritz for a mental\\nresidual capacity evaluation in connection with her applica‐\\ntion for Social Security benefits. The court stated that “[t]he\\n\\f10 No. 18‐2155\\n\\nresult of that evaluation was that plaintiff had sufficient con‐\\ncentration and attention to work.” Dist Ct. at 24. The court\\nheld that United’s analysis was therefore reasonable.\\n Finally, the court considered Lacko’s argument that the\\ndenial of benefits was arbitrary and capricious because\\nUnited failed to properly consider the SSA decision granting\\nher benefits. The court held that United reviewed that deci‐\\nsion and noted that the standard for disability benefits from\\nSSA is not the same as the terms of the Plan. In addition, the\\ncourt noted that the SSA decision concluded that Lacko could\\nperform light work, but granted benefits because her age, ed‐\\nucation and lack of transferable skills made an award manda‐\\ntory. The Plan in this case does not require benefits based on\\nage and skill. In conclusion, the court stated that United did\\nnot ignore the SSA decision; rather, United “reviewed the ev‐\\nidence, was persuaded by some of it (including Dr. Fritz’s as‐\\nsessment) and rejected some of it (including the conclusion\\nthat plaintiff could do light duty work; defendant concluded\\nplaintiff was more restricted).” Dist. Ct. at 25. The district\\ncourt therefore granted summary judgment to United.\\n III.\\n On appeal, Lacko raises a number of challenges to\\nUnited’s denial of her LTD and STD benefits. First, she alleges\\nthat United erred in concluding that there was no change in\\nher physical functional capacity which would prevent her\\nfrom performing the material duties of her job, and that it fur‐\\nther erred in using an incorrect occupational description. She\\nalso argues that United’s decision is deficient in that it failed\\nto adequately address the grant of Social Security disability\\nbenefits. Moreover, Lacko asserts that United, in denying ben‐\\nefits, failed to address the combination of impairments, and\\n\\fNo. 18‐2155 11\\n\\nimproperly relied on the opinions of non‐examining physi‐\\ncians who ignored objective medical evidence.\\n We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary\\njudgment. Hennen v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 904 F.3d 532, 539 (7th\\nCir. 2018); Holmstrom v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 615 F.3d 758,\\n766 (7th Cir. 2010). But where, as here, a plan grants to the\\nadministrator the discretionary authority to determine bene‐\\nfits, we review the decision of that administrator under the\\nmore stringent arbitrary and capricious standard. Id. Alt‐\\nhough that standard is necessarily deferential, it is “’not a rub‐\\nber stamp’” and we will not uphold an administrator’s deci‐\\nsion “’when there is an absence of reasoning in the record to\\nsupport it.’” Id.\\n A.\\n “In conducting this review, we remain cognizant of the\\nconflict of interest that exists when the administrator has both\\nthe discretionary authority to determine eligibility for bene‐\\nfits and the obligation to pay benefits when due.” Jenkins v.\\nPrice Waterhouse Long Term Disability Plan, 564 F.3d 856, 861\\n(7th Cir. 2009); Metro. Life Ins. v. Glenn, 554 U.S. 105, 112, 114\\n(2008); Hennen, 904 F.3d at 539; Dragus v. Reliance Standard Life\\nIns. Co., 882 F.3d 667, 673 (7th Cir. 2018). Both parties\\nacknowledge that United stands in that position, as the deter‐\\nminer of eligibility for benefits and the payor of benefits.\\n The Supreme Court and this court have clearly and con‐\\nsistently held that a conflict of interest is present where the\\nadministrator has both the authority to determine benefits\\nand the obligation to pay them, and that such a conflict is\\nweighed as a factor in determining whether there is an abuse\\n\\f12 No. 18‐2155\\n\\nof discretion, and can act as a tiebreaker when the other fac‐\\ntors are closely balanced. Glenn, 554 U.S. at 117; Hennen, 904\\nF.3d at 539; Dragus, 882 F.3d at 673. Surrounding circum‐\\nstances may increase or decrease the likelihood that the con‐\\nflict of interest impacted the disability determination. For in‐\\nstance, a conflict of interest “should prove less important (per‐\\nhaps to the vanishing point) where the administrator has\\ntaken active steps to reduce potential bias and to promote ac‐\\ncuracy, for example, by walling off claims administrators\\nfrom those interested in firm finances, or by imposing man‐\\nagement checks that penalize inaccurate decision‐making ir‐\\nrespective of whom the inaccuracy benefits.” Glenn, 554 U.S.\\nat 117. Similarly, the potential adverse impact of a conflict of\\ninterest can be ameliorated where an administrator uses sep‐\\narate third‐party vendors to secure independent physicians\\nwho then review the claim. See Dragus, 882 F.3d at 673. United\\nargues that it employed such procedures here, which can cre‐\\nate a distance between the conflict and the decision thus de‐\\ncreasing the likelihood that the disability determination was\\nimpacted by the conflict.1\\n In contrast, “a conflict may carry more weight when the\\n‘circumstances suggest a higher likelihood that it affected the\\nbenefits decision,’ as when an insurer has a history of biased\\nclaims administration,” takes inconsistent positions in the So‐\\ncial Security disability proceedings and its own disability de‐\\ntermination, constantly changes its demands to avoid award‐\\n\\n\\n\\n1 As we will discuss later, however, in this case the use of independent\\nexaminers does not insulate United from the decision because those ex‐\\naminers did not consider the cognitive limitations and would still be lim‐\\nited by the evidence and job descriptions provided by United.\\n\\fNo. 18‐2155 13\\n\\ning benefits, or engages in selective consideration of the evi‐\\ndence. Raybourne v. Cigna Life Ins. Co. of New York, 700 F.3d\\n1076, 1082 (7th Cir. 2012) quoting Glenn, 554 U.S. at 117;\\nHolmstrom, 615 F.3d at 772, 777–78. For instance, where the\\nadministrator assists the claimant in obtaining Social Security\\ndisability benefits, arguing that she is unable to engage in any\\nwork, and then after obtaining those benefits, denies disabil‐\\nity benefits under its own plan, the self‐dealing can signal that\\nthe administrator is acting in its own interests rather than that\\nof the claimant. The Plan benefits in such a situation because\\nit is often entitled to recover some of the Social Security bene‐\\nfit awarded to the claimant, and it avoids the payment of\\nmoney to the claimant in denying benefits under its own plan.\\nWe have recognized that “this scenario justified the reviewing\\ncourt in giving more weight to the conflict because the seem‐\\ningly inconsistent positions taken by the insurer were both fi‐\\nnancially advantageous to the insurer.” Raybourne, 700 F.3d at\\n1088; Glenn, 554 U.S. at 118; Holmstrom, 615 F.3d at 777. Such\\nconcordance between the actions and positions taken by the\\nadministrator and its own financial interest suggest a higher\\nlikelihood that the conflict of interest affected the benefits de‐\\ncision. See Raybourne, 700 F.3d at 1088. That is the scenario\\npresent in many cases in which we have held that the conflict\\nof interest could have impacted the disability determination,\\nbut there is no evidence that United engaged in self‐dealing\\nof that nature here. United argues that Raybourne is inapplica‐\\nble because that involvement in the social security process\\nwas absent here, but that self‐dealing is merely one factor im‐\\npacting the weight given to that structural conflict of interest,\\nand does not mean that no structural conflict exists. Courts\\nmust consider all surrounding circumstances in determining\\n\\f14 No. 18‐2155\\n\\nwhether that conflict of interest could have impacted the dis‐\\nability determination.\\n Another circumstance that should alert the court that the\\nconflict of interest may have influenced the decision is found\\nwhere the administrator engages in only a selective presenta‐\\ntion of the evidence in the record, focusing on the portions\\nthat will support a denial of the claim and ignoring or misrep‐\\nresenting the facts that could demonstrate the disability. See\\nHolmstrom, 615 F.3d at 777; Raybourne, 700 F.3d at 1082; Glenn,\\n554 U.S. at 118. As we will discuss, this case does present such\\na selective presentation of some of the evidence in the record.\\nIn fact, the failure to consider some of the evidence requires a\\nremand here even absent a consideration of the conflict of in‐\\nterest, because it renders the decision arbitrary. Holmstrom,\\n615 F.3d at 776–77 (in addition to showing that the conflict of\\ninterest may have influenced the decision, selective consider‐\\nation of the evidence can indicate that a decision was arbitrary\\neven aside from that conflict). Although the conflict of interest\\nis therefore a factor, which is weighed more heavily in light\\nof that selective presentation of the evidence, that conflict\\ndoes not act as a tiebreaker here because a remand is required\\neven absent that conflict.\\n B.\\n We turn first to the claim that United failed to adequately\\naddress the Social Security disability determination, because\\nthat issue touches upon at least two other arguments pre‐\\nsented by Lacko—namely, her argument as to the proper oc‐\\ncupational description and her argument that United failed to\\naddress the combination of impairments. SSA determined\\nthat Lacko was entitled to benefits. That determination in‐\\n\\fNo. 18‐2155 15\\n\\nvolved the application of SSA’s five‐step sequential evalua‐\\ntion process. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. Under the first three\\nparts of the test, SSA determined that Lacko was not engaged\\nin substantial gainful activity, that she had severe medically‐\\ndeterminable impairments consisting of inflammatory arthri‐\\ntis, disorders of back—discogenic and degenerative, chronic\\nheart failure, and affective disorders, and that her impair‐\\nments did not meet or equal a listing. See id. Before proceed‐\\ning to the fourth step, the regulations require SSA to assess\\nthe claimant’s residual functional capacity, which it then uses\\nat steps four and five when evaluating the claim at those\\nsteps. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). SSA conducted a physical re‐\\nsidual functional capacity assessment and a mental residual\\nfunctional capacity assessment (“MRFC”). The MRFC was\\nconducted by Dr. Fritz and determined that Lacko had under‐\\nstanding and memory limitations. Although he found that\\nLacko was not significantly limited in her ability to remember\\nlocations and work‐like procedures and her ability to under‐\\nstand and remember very short and simple instructions, Dr.\\nFritz concluded that she was moderately limited in her ability\\nto understand and remember detailed instructions. He fur‐\\nther concluded that she sustained concentration and persis‐\\ntence limitations which rendered her moderately limited in\\nher ability to carry out detailed instructions. Finally, he also\\ndetermined that she had adaptation limitations, in that she\\nwas moderately limited in her ability to respond appropri‐\\nately to changes in the work setting.\\n SSA applied that MRFC in considering at step four\\nwhether she was capable of performing her past relevant\\nwork. First, it identified the DOT title for her past relevant\\nwork, determining that the job titles of Field Auditor and Ac‐\\ncountant were proper. SSA determined that Lacko could not\\n\\f16 No. 18‐2155\\n\\nperform her past relevant work because her MRFC reduced\\nher skill level. It determined that her past relevant work was\\nskilled work, and that her impairments limited her to un‐\\nskilled, light work.\\n United and the district court both recognized that SSA had\\nlimited her to light work, a higher level than the sedentary\\nwork limitation that United found, but neither addressed her\\nmental limitations. Neither United nor the district court\\nacknowledged or addressed the determination that she was\\nlimited to unskilled work based on the MRFC. In fact, the de‐\\ncisions by United and the district court mischaracterized the\\nSSA decision. United characterized Dr. Fritz’s evaluation as\\nfinding no evidence of memory impairment or cognitive im‐\\npairment, but that is unsupportable. The SSA decision, and\\nspecifically the MRFC within it, found her moderately limited\\nin her ability to understand and remember detailed instruc‐\\ntions, carry out detailed instructions, and respond appropri‐\\nately to changes in the work setting, and based on that MRFC\\nshe was deemed limited to unskilled work and therefore un‐\\nable to perform her past work which was skilled work. United\\nnever acknowledged those memory and cognitive limitations\\nfound by Dr. Fritz, nor the limitation to unskilled work that\\nfollowed from that MRFC.\\n Similarly, United again acknowledges only part of Dr.\\nFritz’s findings on appeal, characterizing them as follows:\\n A mental status assessment conducted on June\\n 24, 2016 by Dr. Steven Fritz, Psy. D. found Ms.\\n Lacko to have (1) sufficient attention and con‐\\n centration to persist at and complete work activ‐\\n ities for the usual periods required in the gen‐\\n eral work force; (2) the capacity for adequate\\n\\fNo. 18‐2155 17\\n\\n pace and perseverance to maintain a schedule\\n and on time attendance and (3) the capacity to\\n complete a normal work day and work week on\\n a regular basis. Dr. Fritz also determined that\\n psychologically based symptoms would not\\n markedly impair Ms. Lacko’s capacity to com‐\\n plete a normal work week.\\n(citations omitted) Appellee’s Brief at 22. That summary re‐\\ncites the conclusions of Dr. Fritz as to her ability to fulfill the\\nduties of unskilled work, but again fails to reflect the areas in\\nwhich he found her moderately limited, and which precluded\\nher from skilled work.\\n And other than that mischaracterization of the mental lim‐\\nitations, United in its denial of LTD benefits did not further\\nattempt to reconcile the SSA determination that she was enti‐\\ntled to disability benefits, dismissing it with one statement:\\n“Eligibility requirements for Social Security Disability may\\ndiffer from the eligibility requirements under this policy.” See\\nDist. Ct. at 16. That trite statement is of no value in any anal‐\\nysis. That something “may differ” from the Plan requirements\\nsays nothing, as it is noncommittal as to whether there is any\\nactual difference. It failed to identify any difference, and to\\nexplain how that difference would impact the disability de‐\\ntermination.\\n On appeal, United argues that the SSA decision granting\\nbenefits was based in part on her age, and that age is not a\\nfactor under the Plan. The final decision by the SSA, at step\\nfive of the sequential evaluation process, considers whether\\nthe claimant is capable of making the adjustment to other\\nwork, and the claimant receives disability benefits only if the\\nSSA concludes that she is both not capable of performing her\\n\\f18 No. 18‐2155\\n\\npast relevant work and not capable of adjusting to other work.\\nAt step five, the SSA considers factors such as age and educa‐\\ntion, which are not factors in United’s determination of disa‐\\nbility. That difference is irrelevant, however, because those\\nfactors are not considered by the SSA at step four in determin‐\\ning her ability to perform her past work, and that is the anal‐\\nysis that equates with the Plan’s language. The question at\\nstep four of the SSA evaluation process was whether Lacko\\nwas capable of performing her past work as it is performed in\\nthe national economy, and the Plan under which United de‐\\nnied benefits similarly considers whether she was prevented\\nfrom performing the material duties of her regular occupa‐\\ntion. There is no apparent basis for determining that the SSA\\ndetermination of her ability to perform past work is materi‐\\nally different from the disability eligibility requirements for\\nUnited. That discussion by United is insufficient to constitute\\na reasoned consideration of Dr. Fritz’s evaluation or the SSA\\ndecision as a whole.\\n Moreover, the record lacks any mental or psychological\\nevaluation that contradicts or casts doubt on the conclusions\\nby Dr. Fritz, and United has never challenged or questioned\\nthose findings. Those findings indicate that Lacko is incapable\\nof performing an occupation that requires more than un‐\\nskilled work. Unskilled work for SSA purposes is work that\\n“requires little or no judgment to do simple duties that can be\\nlearned on the job in a short period of time (30 days or less).”\\nProgram Operations Manual System (POMS) DI 25015.017.\\nSkilled work, in contrast, “[r]equires high levels of judgment\\nand adaptability; [i]nvolves setting realistic goals or making\\nplans independently; [r]equires understanding, carrying out,\\nremembering complex instructions; [e]ncompasses abstract\\n\\fNo. 18‐2155 19\\n\\nideas and problem solving; … and requires both … work ac‐\\ntivity exercising judgment beyond carrying out simple duties\\n… and knowledge of principles and processes of an art, sci‐\\nence, or applied trade and the ability to apply that knowledge\\nin a proper and approved manner.” Id. There is no basis what‐\\nsoever in the record to conclude that a job of Senior Manager\\nfor the Audit Department is anything less than skilled work.\\nTherefore, because United failed to recognize and address the\\ncognitive limitations set forth in the SSA decision, there is no\\nreasoned basis in the decision to support the determination\\nthat Lacko was ineligible for disability benefits.\\n The district court failed to address that deficiency in\\nUnited’s analysis. In addressing the MRFC, the court stated\\nthat “[t]he result of that evaluation was that plaintiff had suf‐\\nficient concentration and attention to work,” and held that\\nUnited’s analysis was therefore reasonable. Dist. Ct. at 24. On\\nappeal, United continues in its selective characterization of\\nthe SSA’s decision, stating that “[t]he SSA also found that Ms.\\nLacko’s limitations as a result of her pain, weakness, fatigue\\nand alleged understanding and memory difficulties had not\\narisen to such level as to prevent her from participating in\\nwork related activities.” Appellee’s Brief at 23. That of course\\nis only partially true. The MRFC evaluation indeed deter‐\\nmined that Lacko possessed sufficient concentration and at‐\\ntention to “work” if the work was unskilled work. Her limita‐\\ntions were not so severe as to preclude unskilled work. But it\\ndetermined that she lacked the ability to perform her past rel‐\\nevant work because it was skilled work. The district court,\\nlike United, failed to recognize and address that significant\\ndistinction, which is controlling for the purposes here of de‐\\ntermining her ability to perform the job of Senior Manager.\\nMoreover, the district court held that United accepted the\\n\\f20 No. 18‐2155\\n\\nfindings of Dr. Fritz. If, as the district court states, United ac‐\\ncepted the determination of Dr. Fritz, then it would have to\\naccept that Lacko possessed mental limitations that rendered\\nher incapable of work other than unskilled work.\\n C.\\n In considering the SSA decision, United also failed to ad‐\\ndress the different classification used by the SSA from the Dic‐\\ntionary of Occupational Titles (4th ed. 1991) (“DOT”). The LTD\\nplan required United to determine whether Lacko could per‐\\nform her regular occupation, which it defined as not limited\\nto her specific position, but “instead will be considered to be\\na similar position or activity based on job descriptions in‐\\ncluded in the [DOT].” In denying benefits, United character‐\\nized her job as one of “189.167‐022 Manager, Department,” a\\ngeneric classification under the DOT that falls under the gen‐\\neral catchall category of “189 Miscellaneous Managers and\\nOfficials, NEC.” According to the DOT, “[t]his group includes\\nmiscellaneous managers and officials, not elsewhere classi‐\\nfied.” DOT defines this position as applying to one who\\n“[d]irects and coordinates, through subordinate supervisors,\\ndepartment activities in commercial, industrial, or service es‐\\ntablishment,” and the only reference to financial work is that\\nit can include one who “[m]onitors and analyzes costs and\\nprepares budget, using computer.” Dictionary of Occupational\\nTitles 189 (4th ed. 1991)\\n In contrast, the SSA classified Lacko’s job as falling under\\n“160 Accountants, Auditors, and Related Occupations,”\\nwhich falls under category 16 that “includes occupations con‐\\ncerned with specialized administrative and managerial func‐\\ntions which are common to many types of organizations,” and\\n\\fNo. 18‐2155 21\\n\\nspecifically “160.167‐038 Auditor, Tax” and “160.162‐018 Ac‐\\ncountant.” The DOT provides that:\\n This group includes occupations concerned\\n with examining, analyzing, and interpreting ac‐\\n counting records for the purpose of giving ad‐\\n vice or preparing statements. It also includes oc‐\\n cupations involved in devising or installing ac‐\\n counting systems and advising on cost‐record‐\\n ing systems or other financial and budgetary\\n data.\\nDictionary of Occupational Titles 160 (4th ed. 1991). The titles\\nused by SSA therefore apply to the audit and accounting man‐\\nagerial functions common to many organizations. Those ap‐\\npear more directly related to the Senior Manager position at\\nissue here.\\n They also more closely align with the job description for\\nthe position of Senior Manager in the Audit Department. The\\nsummary of the job description by BKD, upon which the par‐\\nties agree, provides that:\\n The Senior Manager supervises Seniors, Associ‐\\n ates, and Interns. He or she is responsible for au‐\\n dit program approval, personnel scheduling,\\n audit working papers review, financial state‐\\n ment disclosure footnote approval, day to day\\n client relationships, determination of billings\\n for engagements, and evaluation of Interns, As‐\\n sociates, and Seniors.\\nDefendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Local Rule 56.1 Statement\\nof Material Facts 12 at 5–7. That description indicates that the\\nposition requires the specialized skills of an auditor rather\\n\\f22 No. 18‐2155\\n\\nthan solely managerial skills. In addition, the job description\\nincludes the following list of “Essential Duties and Responsi‐\\nbilities,” which more precisely delineate the job requirements:\\n ‐ Manages multiple concurrent engagements\\n without disruption or loss of control and\\n within the time allotted\\n ‐ Correctly completes and reviews routine audit\\n engagement procedures in a timely and profes‐\\n sional manner\\n ‐ Demonstrates ability to recognize problems\\n and proposes sensible solutions, with appro‐\\n priate balance between clients’ needs and\\n firm’s risk\\n ‐ Establishes accountability for meeting as‐\\n signed deadlines or budgets and provides\\n advanced warning of variances\\n ‐ Demonstrates proficiency/subject matter exper‐\\n tise with industry‐specific technical standards,\\n participation in specialty professional organiza‐\\n tions and anticipates impact of specialty with cli‐\\n ents and BKD teams\\n ‐ Conducts and reviews technical research and ap‐\\n plies research to findings within complex ac‐\\n counting areas\\n ‐ Proven ability to supervise and train other\\n professionals\\n ‐ Balances assigned workload between self\\n and staff. Provides staff with timely perfor‐\\n mance feedback\\n\\fNo. 18‐2155 23\\n\\n ‐ Develops contacts and referral sources\\n through involvement in professional or civic\\n community organizations as a committee\\n member or board member\\n ‐ Business Development: sells services to new\\n and existing clients that provide value to cli‐\\n ents, building client loyalty and satisfaction.\\n(emphasis added) Id. As the italicized sections demonstrate,\\nthe essential duties and responsibilities of Lacko’s position re‐\\nquired technical and specialized expertise and included du‐\\nties beyond the common supervisory duties of a manager,\\nsuch as the duty to conduct technical research and apply re‐\\nsearch to findings within complex accounting areas.\\n United’s vocational expert nevertheless determined that\\nonly the general, catchall “Manager, Department” title of the\\nDOT was the most applicable. Tellingly, that vocational ex‐\\npert’s listing of the material duties of Lacko’s position in‐\\ncluded only the general summary of the job description set\\nforth above, along with an exposition of such standard man‐\\nagerial responsibilities as that of interviewing, hiring and\\ntraining employees and appraising performance. Absent from\\nthe Senior Manager job description set forth by United’s vo‐\\ncational consultant is any mention of the “Essential Duties\\nand Responsibilities,” including the more specialized and\\ntechnical duties italicized above.\\n In fact, nothing in the vocational expert’s description mir‐\\nrors or even alludes to the technical and specialized duties\\nitalicized above, which constitute 3 of the 10 essential job du‐\\nties. Moreover, the essential nature of those duties is rein‐\\nforced by the education and experience requirements of the\\n\\f24 No. 18‐2155\\n\\njob, which mandated that the Senior Manager have seven\\nyears of public accounting experience or its equivalent, that\\nshe have certification as a Certified Public Accountant (CPA),\\nand that she maintain a current CPA license. The vocational\\nexpert’s report fails to mention those job requirements, and\\ntherefore could not properly determine whether the DOT oc‐\\ncupation of “Manager, Department” was a “similar position\\nor activity” to her specific position, as required under the LTD\\nplan. Finally, although United’s vocational consultant dis‐\\ncussed the physical demand characteristics of the occupation,\\nidentifying it as at the sedentary exertion level, the consultant\\nnever examined the mental characteristics of the occupation,\\nwhich would have identified the skill level needed for the po‐\\nsition.\\n We have repeatedly condemned that type of selective con‐\\nsideration of only the evidence that supports one outcome.\\nSee Holmstrom, 615 F.3d at 777; Raybourne, 700 F.3d at 1082;\\nGlenn, 554 U.S. at 118. The determination that Lacko’s job fell\\nwithin the DOT title “Manager, Department” is rendered\\nquestionable because the vocational expert’s job description\\nfailed to include those essential duties that required her spe‐\\ncialized audit and accounting skills, and failed to identify the\\neducational and license requirements of the position. In light\\nof that deficiency, the failure to acknowledge and reconcile\\nthe alternative DOT title applied by SSA is even more egre‐\\ngious. That, in turn, impacted the disability determination be‐\\ncause United never engaged in a determination as to whether\\nLacko had the mental and physical capacity to perform the\\ntasks required of an Auditor or Accountant position under the\\nDOT.\\n\\fNo. 18‐2155 25\\n\\n At a minimum, United should have addressed the DOT\\nclassification used by the SSA. Moreover, United should have\\nreconciled its choice of the more general DOT title in relation\\nto all of the job requirements, including the requirement that\\nLacko maintain a current CPA license.\\n IV.\\n Therefore, both in its assessment of Dr. Fritz’s evaluation,\\nand its consideration of the DOT classification, United pro‐\\nvided a selective characterization of the record that discussed\\nonly the portions that would favor a determination that Lacko\\nwas not disabled, and ignored or mischaracterized the por‐\\ntions that would support a finding of disability. We have pre‐\\nviously held that where an administrator is operating under\\na conflict of interest, as United is here, such a selective analy‐\\nsis is evidence that the conflict of interest may have impacted\\nthe decision. See Holmstrom, 615 F.3d at 777; Raybourne, 700\\nF.3d at 1082; see also Glenn, 554 U.S. at 118. The potential im‐\\npact of that conflict of interest is a factor to consider in deter‐\\nmining whether the decision was arbitrary. We note that the\\nuse of third‐party reviewers, as United did here, can provide\\nsome separation between the decision and that conflict of in‐\\nterest, lessening the likelihood that the conflict impacted the\\ndecision, but here that is of little value because those review‐\\ners were not asked to opine as to the mental limitations nor is\\nthere any indication that they received the proper description\\nof the job requirements. In the end, however, our decision that\\na remand is necessary does not depend on that conflict of in‐\\nterest as the tipping point, because even absent a conflict of\\ninterest the decision cannot be sustained based on the failure\\nto properly characterize and address Dr. Fritz’s evaluation\\nand the mental limitations, and the failure to address the DOT\\n\\f26 No. 18‐2155\\n\\nclassification used by the SSA. See Holmstrom, 615 F.3d at 773\\n(a plan administrator must address the Social Security find‐\\nings and evidence in the record and provide a reasonable ex‐\\nplanation for discounting it).\\n That determination is dispositive as well of Lacko’s claim\\nthat United failed to address the combination of her impair‐\\nments.2 United failed to discuss the mental limitations found\\nby Dr. Fritz, and the impact of Lacko’s medications on her\\ncognitive and physical functioning. Accordingly, United must\\naddress the combination of all her impairments, including the\\nimpact of medication and treatment for those ailments, on her\\nability to perform the material duties of her regular occupa‐\\ntion. That failure to consider the combination of impairments,\\nincluding the mental limitations, on her ability to perform her\\njob is fatal to the denial of STD benefits as well. Moreover, we\\nwould note that the Plan’s requirement of a “change” in a per‐\\nson’s physical or mental capacity in order to qualify for bene‐\\nfits does not by its terms preclude a degenerative condition\\nfrom qualifying a claimant for benefits. A condition can exist\\nfor years, and only prevent a person from performing her job\\nat a later point in time when the worsening condition proves\\n\\n\\n\\n2 Lacko also asserts that United erred in crediting the opinions of non‐\\nexamining physicians over the opinions of her treating physicians, partic‐\\nularly where the Plan allowed United to require Lacko to submit to an\\nexamination from a physician of United’s choice. It is well‐established,\\nhowever, that unlike disability claims under SSA, a plan administrator de‐\\ntermining disability benefits is not required under ERISA to give special\\ndeference to the opinions of treating physicians. Black & Decker Disability\\nPlan v. Nord, 538 U.S. 822, 825 (2003).\\n\\fNo. 18‐2155 27\\n\\nunmanageable. The deterioration can be sufficient to consti‐\\ntute a change in conditions under the plain language.\\n The most common remedy when an ERISA plan adminis‐\\ntrator’s benefits decision is deemed arbitrary is to remand the\\nmatter for a fresh administrative decision, rather than to grant\\nan outright award of benefits, and we believe that is the ap‐\\npropriate remedy here. Holmstrom, 615 F.3d at 778; Hennen,\\n904 F.3d at 542. A remand is necessary for United to reassess\\nLacko’s claim in light of the deficiencies identified in this\\nopinion.\\n Accordingly, the decision of the district court is\\nREVERSED and the case REMANDED for further proceed‐\\nings consistent with this opinion.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4406122/\", \"author_raw\": \"Ilana Kara Diamond Rovner\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"BAUER"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"ROVNER"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"ST EVE"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"BAUER\": \", Circuit\", \"ROVNER\": \", Circuit\", \"ST EVE\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4628869/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":6,"string":"6"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Shirley Lacko v. United of Omaha Life Insurance\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-06-12\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18‐2155\nSHIRLEY LACKO,\n Plaintiff‐Appellant,\n v.\n\nUNITED OF OMAHA LIFE\nINSURANCE COMPANY,\n Defendant‐Appellee.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 1:17‐cv‐02100 — Jorge L. Alonso, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED NOVEMBER 5, 2018 — DECIDED JUNE 12, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before BAUER, ROVNER, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.\n ROVNER, Circuit Judge. Shirley Lacko filed suit against\nUnited of Omaha Life Insurance Company (“United”), chal‐\nlenging United’s denial of her claims for short‐term and long‐\nterm disability insurance. Those claims were brought pursu‐\nant to group insurance policies issued by United to her em‐\nployer, BKD, Inc., an accounting firm. Specifically, BKD pro‐\n\f2 No. 18‐2155\n\nvided two group insurance policies, Group Short Term Disa‐\nbility Insurance Policy No. GUC‐ABF3 (the “STD” plan) and\nthe Group Long Term Disability Insurance Policy No. GLTD‐\nABF3 (the “LTD” plan). Both policies were issued by United,\nwho also served as the claims review fiduciary for claims to\nSTD and LTD benefits.\n Lacko based her claims for STD and LTD benefits on the\nadverse combination of a number of impairments, including\nbut not limited to gastroparesis, diabetes, rheumatoid arthri‐\ntis, congestive heart failure, breathing difficulties, anxiety,\nmusculoskeletal impairments, and cognitive difficulties re‐\nlated in part to the medication needed to manage the other\nconditions. The district court opinion details the extensive\nmedical evidence presented to United in support of Lacko’s\ndisability benefits claims. It includes reports from numerous\nphysicians, as well as objective evidence such as MRI, X‐ray,\nand lab reports. An exhaustive recitation of that evidence,\nhowever, is unnecessary to resolve the issues presented in this\ncase. Therefore, we will set forth the evidence only to the ex‐\ntent that it is necessary to decide the issues in this appeal and\ndefer to the district court the more extensive recitation.\n Although United initially approved her claims for STD\nbenefits on three occasions for the time period spanning Oc‐\ntober 12, 2015 through November 22, 2015, it denied STD ben‐\nefits on June 16, 2016 for the period beyond November 22,\n2015, concluding the records failed to demonstrate a change\nin Lacko’s medical condition at the time she stopped working\nor subsequently. United also denied her claim for LTD bene‐\nfits. Lacko then filed this action in the district court under the\nEmployee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA),\n29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., challenging the denial of LTD benefits,\n\fNo. 18‐2155 3\n\nand the denial of STD benefits from the period of November\n22, 2015 until December 27, 2015 (at which time LTD benefits\nwould apply). The district court granted summary judgment\nin favor of United, and Lacko now appeals that decision to\nthis court.\n I.\n Lacko began working for the predecessor to BKD in ap‐\nproximately January 1999 and worked until September 25,\n2015. She applied for benefits under the STD plan on October\n2, 2015. At the time that she ceased working, her position at\nBKD was that of Senior Manager in the Audit Department,\nwith an annual salary of $93,250.04.\n The two disability plans covered different time periods.\nThe first 90 days of disability are covered by the STD plan,\nwhich in relevant part provides benefits when ,“because of an\nInjury or Sickness, a significant change in Your mental or\nphysical functional capacity has occurred in which: … You\nare prevented from performing the Material Duties of Your\nRegular Job (on a part‐time or full‐time basis) or are unable to\nwork Full‐Time … .” STD Plan at 27. The STD plan defines\n“Material Duties” as encompassing “the essential tasks, func‐\ntions, and operations relating to Your Regular Job that cannot\nbe reasonably omitted or modified,” and “Regular Job” is de‐\nfined as “the occupation You are routinely performing when\nYour Disability begins.” Id. at 28–29.\n The LTD plan applies beyond that 90‐day period and in‐\ncludes slightly different requirements. Instead of speaking in\nterms of the claimant’s ability to perform her regular job, the\nLTD plan provides benefits when the claimant is incapable of\n\f4 No. 18‐2155\n\nthe material duties of her regular occupation. Specifically, the\nLTD plan provides:\n Disability and Disabled means that because of\n an Injury or Sickness, a significant change in\n your mental or physical functional capacity has\n occurred in which You are:\n (a) prevented from performing at least\n one of the Material Duties of Your Regu‐\n lar Occupation on a part‐time or full‐time\n basis; and\n (b) unable to generate Current Earnings\n which exceed 99% of Your Basic Monthly\n Earnings due to that same Injury or Sick‐\n ness. …\n Material Duties means the essential tasks, func‐\n tions, and operations relating to an occupation\n that cannot be reasonably omitted or modified.\n In no event will We consider working an aver‐\n age of more than 40 hours per week in itself to\n be part of material duties. One of the material\n duties of Your Regular Occupation is the ability\n to work for an employer on a full‐time basis. …\n Regular Occupation means the occupation You\n are routinely performing when Your Disability\n begins. Your regular occupation is not limited to\n the specific position You held with the Policy‐\n holder, but will instead be considered to be a\n similar position or activity based on job descrip‐\n tions included in the most current edition of the\n\fNo. 18‐2155 5\n\n U.S. Department of Labor Dictionary of Occu‐\n pational Titles (DOT). We have the right to sub‐\n stitute or replace the DOT with a service or\n other information that We determine of compa‐\n rable purpose, with or without notice. To deter‐\n mine Your regular occupation, We will look at\n Your occupation as it is normally performed in\n the national economy, instead of how work\n tasks are performed for the specific employer, at\n a specific location, or in a specific area or region.\nLTD Plan at 29–31.\n Therefore, Lacko’s entitlement to benefits under the LTD\nplan hinges upon whether Lacko was capable of fulfilling the\nmaterial duties of her regular occupation. That focus on her\noccupation sets the stage for a major point of contention in\nthis appeal, which is whether United used an appropriate oc‐\ncupational classification in determining her eligibility for ben‐\nefits. As we will explore in detail later, United classified her\nposition as that of a Department Manager under the Diction‐\nary of Occupational Titles (“DOT”), but the Social Security\nAdministration (SSA) used a different DOT title in assessing\nLacko’s claim for benefits, classifying her position as that of\nan Auditor or Accountant.\n After Lacko’s requests for STD and LTD benefits were de‐\nnied, Lacko requested reconsideration of those determina‐\ntions from United. With respect to the STD benefits claim,\nUnited in that appeal considered the evidence as to her gas‐\ntroparesis, back pain, and osteoarthritis, and determined that\nshe was capable of performing the duties of her job.\n\f6 No. 18‐2155\n\n In appealing the denial of LTD benefits, Lacko provided\nUnited with the SSA decision granting benefits, but United\nagain determined that the denial of LTD benefits was appro‐\npriate. In its determination denying that appeal regarding\nLTD benefits, United stated that it had considered her claim\nthat she was disabled due to chronic pain, fatigue, congestive\nheart failure, hypertension, osteoarthritis, diabetes, asthma,\ngastroparesis, sleep disturbance, vertigo, vitamin D defi‐\nciency, anxiety and depression. United acknowledged that\nthe file revealed a history of back pain and diffuse joint pain\ncomplaints, and that MRI studies of the lumbar, thoracic, and\ncervical spine documented multi‐level degenerative changes\nwith disc bulging in some areas. Additionally, it noted that\nX‐rays confirmed arthropathy in Lacko’s hands and feet. Ac‐\ncordingly, United determined that she would be restricted to\nsedentary work activities and should pursue continued treat‐\nment for pain management. It also found that her obstructive\nsleep apnea and the resulting fatigue could also support that\nlimitation to sedentary work, and opined that her chronic ob‐\nstructive pulmonary disease and asthma would not preclude\nsedentary work activities. Although it recognized other med‐\nical conditions, it did not find that they supported any further\nlimitations. For instance, it recognized that she suffered from\ndiabetes, but held that her diabetes was controlled with treat‐\nment and regular visits to her endocrinologist and therefore\nwould not require any restrictions or limitations. It also\nacknowledged that she was diagnosed with chronic gastritis\nand with gastroparesis due to diabetes requiring treatment\nwith medications. United found no limitations related to her\nvertigo or dizziness, or from cardiac conditions or hyperten‐\nsion. Finally, United recognized that symptoms of anxiety,\ndepression and memory loss had been reported. It held that\n\fNo. 18‐2155 7\n\nthere was no indication of an inability to perform the activities\nof daily living or of cognitive issues or memory impairment\nto preclude work activities. United noted that Lacko was eval‐\nuated by Dr. Steven Fritz, Psy.D., for a mental residual func‐\ntional capacity assessment as a part of the Social Security re‐\nview, and it stated that the evaluation found no evidence of\nmemory impairment or cognitive impairment. United\nacknowledged that Lacko has multiple medical complaints\nrequiring medication and regular visits to health providers,\nbut tracking the language of the LTD plan, it held that it did\nnot find evidence of a significant change in her physical or\nmental functional capacity on or around her last date worked\nto preclude her from continuing to perform the material du‐\nties of her regular occupation. It conceded that she had been\nfound disabled by the SSA and was receiving disability bene‐\nfits but held that the SSA decision did not affect its disability\ndetermination, stating only that “[e]ligibility requirements for\nSocial Security Disability may differ from the eligibility re‐\nquirements under this policy.”\n II.\n Lacko subsequently filed this ERISA action seeking STD\nbenefits from November 22, 2015 through December 27, 2015,\nand LTD benefits thereafter, under § 502 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C.\n§ 1132(a)(1)(B), which provides that “[a] civil action may be\nbrought … by a participant or beneficiary … to recover bene‐\nfits due to him under the terms of his plan, to enforce his\nrights under the terms of the plan, or to clarify his rights to\nfuture benefits under the terms of the plan.” The district court\ngranted summary judgment to United.\n First, the court considered the decision as to STD benefits.\nIt held that United denied STD benefits on the basis that there\n\f8 No. 18‐2155\n\nhad been no change in Lacko’s functional capacity that would\nprevent her from performing her job. The court found that it\nwas reasonable for United to focus on whether Lacko had ex‐\nperienced a change in medical symptoms, because the plain\nlanguage of the STD plan requires a change. According to the\ncourt, when Lacko was first granted STD benefits by United,\nit had received medical records from April 2015 that showed\nLacko was “feeling good,” and records from September 2015\nshowing that Lacko reported feeling pain all over, thus indi‐\ncating a “change.” Subsequently, United received additional\nmedical records which showed that Lacko had suffered gas‐\ntroparesis since at least 2011, and degenerative disc disease\nfrom at least 2013, and evidence that she had taken opiates for\npain for a decade. The court held that “[g]iven that plaintiff’s\nmedical conditions were of long duration, it was reasonable\nfor defendant to conclude that plaintiff had not experienced a\nchange in functional capacity.” Dist. Ct. Memorandum and\nOrder of May 15, 2018 (hereinafter “Dist. Ct.”) at 20.\n The court then turned to United’s denial of LTD benefits.\nFirst, it held that United did not err in relying on the DOT for\nher job description, because the LTD plan explicitly allows for\nsuch an approach. The court also rejected the argument that\nUnited erred in relying on the opinions of non‐examining\nphysicians. The court noted that Lacko supplied medical rec‐\nords from eight treating physicians, but six of them described\nonly Lacko’s symptoms and diagnoses without translating\nthose into work restrictions. Of the two doctors that described\nwork restrictions, the court described one—Dr. Daniel\nHirsen—as providing useful but imprecise information in\nstating that Lacko was unable to sit for long periods of time\ndue to neck and back pain and unable to do computer work\ndue to joint swelling. The other doctor who identified work\n\fNo. 18‐2155 9\n\nrestrictions, Dr. Vanessa Hagan, checked boxes indiscrimi‐\nnately, indicating that pain rendered her unable to perform\nevery task on the list including basic tasks such as following\nrules and relating to co‐workers. The court acknowledged\nthat Dr. Hagan subsequently provided additional infor‐\nmation about Lacko’s restrictions, stating that Lacko’s pain\nmedication makes it difficult for her to focus such that she\ncould not work if she took her medications as prescribed. The\ncourt countered, however, that “[s]eparately and to the con‐\ntrary, the Social Security Administration concluded that\nplaintiff was capable of performing light‐duty work.” Id. at\n23. Based on the competing conclusions and the imprecise re‐\nstrictions, the court concluded that it was reasonable for\nUnited to seek review of the records by non‐examining phy‐\nsicians and adopt their conclusions that she was restricted to\nsedentary work.\n The court next considered whether United properly con‐\nsidered her various ailments in combination when determin‐\ning her restrictions. The court noted that the treating physi‐\ncians had determined that her physical ailments limited her\nto sedentary work. The court noted, however, that the seden‐\ntary restriction related only to her physical capability, and\nthat Dr. Hagan had noted, in describing the combined effect\nof Lacko’s ailments, that the medications for those conditions\naffected Lacko’s ability to focus. The court rejected Lacko’s ar‐\ngument that United failed to take that mental impairment into\naccount. The court noted that in its decision, United specifi‐\ncally recognized that Lacko had seen Dr. Fritz for a mental\nresidual capacity evaluation in connection with her applica‐\ntion for Social Security benefits. The court stated that “[t]he\n\f10 No. 18‐2155\n\nresult of that evaluation was that plaintiff had sufficient con‐\ncentration and attention to work.” Dist Ct. at 24. The court\nheld that United’s analysis was therefore reasonable.\n Finally, the court considered Lacko’s argument that the\ndenial of benefits was arbitrary and capricious because\nUnited failed to properly consider the SSA decision granting\nher benefits. The court held that United reviewed that deci‐\nsion and noted that the standard for disability benefits from\nSSA is not the same as the terms of the Plan. In addition, the\ncourt noted that the SSA decision concluded that Lacko could\nperform light work, but granted benefits because her age, ed‐\nucation and lack of transferable skills made an award manda‐\ntory. The Plan in this case does not require benefits based on\nage and skill. In conclusion, the court stated that United did\nnot ignore the SSA decision; rather, United “reviewed the ev‐\nidence, was persuaded by some of it (including Dr. Fritz’s as‐\nsessment) and rejected some of it (including the conclusion\nthat plaintiff could do light duty work; defendant concluded\nplaintiff was more restricted).” Dist. Ct. at 25. The district\ncourt therefore granted summary judgment to United.\n III.\n On appeal, Lacko raises a number of challenges to\nUnited’s denial of her LTD and STD benefits. First, she alleges\nthat United erred in concluding that there was no change in\nher physical functional capacity which would prevent her\nfrom performing the material duties of her job, and that it fur‐\nther erred in using an incorrect occupational description. She\nalso argues that United’s decision is deficient in that it failed\nto adequately address the grant of Social Security disability\nbenefits. Moreover, Lacko asserts that United, in denying ben‐\nefits, failed to address the combination of impairments, and\n\fNo. 18‐2155 11\n\nimproperly relied on the opinions of non‐examining physi‐\ncians who ignored objective medical evidence.\n We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary\njudgment. Hennen v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 904 F.3d 532, 539 (7th\nCir. 2018); Holmstrom v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 615 F.3d 758,\n766 (7th Cir. 2010). But where, as here, a plan grants to the\nadministrator the discretionary authority to determine bene‐\nfits, we review the decision of that administrator under the\nmore stringent arbitrary and capricious standard. Id. Alt‐\nhough that standard is necessarily deferential, it is “’not a rub‐\nber stamp’” and we will not uphold an administrator’s deci‐\nsion “’when there is an absence of reasoning in the record to\nsupport it.’” Id.\n A.\n “In conducting this review, we remain cognizant of the\nconflict of interest that exists when the administrator has both\nthe discretionary authority to determine eligibility for bene‐\nfits and the obligation to pay benefits when due.” Jenkins v.\nPrice Waterhouse Long Term Disability Plan, 564 F.3d 856, 861\n(7th Cir. 2009); Metro. Life Ins. v. Glenn, 554 U.S. 105, 112, 114\n(2008); Hennen, 904 F.3d at 539; Dragus v. Reliance Standard Life\nIns. Co., 882 F.3d 667, 673 (7th Cir. 2018). Both parties\nacknowledge that United stands in that position, as the deter‐\nminer of eligibility for benefits and the payor of benefits.\n The Supreme Court and this court have clearly and con‐\nsistently held that a conflict of interest is present where the\nadministrator has both the authority to determine benefits\nand the obligation to pay them, and that such a conflict is\nweighed as a factor in determining whether there is an abuse\n\f12 No. 18‐2155\n\nof discretion, and can act as a tiebreaker when the other fac‐\ntors are closely balanced. Glenn, 554 U.S. at 117; Hennen, 904\nF.3d at 539; Dragus, 882 F.3d at 673. Surrounding circum‐\nstances may increase or decrease the likelihood that the con‐\nflict of interest impacted the disability determination. For in‐\nstance, a conflict of interest “should prove less important (per‐\nhaps to the vanishing point) where the administrator has\ntaken active steps to reduce potential bias and to promote ac‐\ncuracy, for example, by walling off claims administrators\nfrom those interested in firm finances, or by imposing man‐\nagement checks that penalize inaccurate decision‐making ir‐\nrespective of whom the inaccuracy benefits.” Glenn, 554 U.S.\nat 117. Similarly, the potential adverse impact of a conflict of\ninterest can be ameliorated where an administrator uses sep‐\narate third‐party vendors to secure independent physicians\nwho then review the claim. See Dragus, 882 F.3d at 673. United\nargues that it employed such procedures here, which can cre‐\nate a distance between the conflict and the decision thus de‐\ncreasing the likelihood that the disability determination was\nimpacted by the conflict.1\n In contrast, “a conflict may carry more weight when the\n‘circumstances suggest a higher likelihood that it affected the\nbenefits decision,’ as when an insurer has a history of biased\nclaims administration,” takes inconsistent positions in the So‐\ncial Security disability proceedings and its own disability de‐\ntermination, constantly changes its demands to avoid award‐\n\n\n\n1 As we will discuss later, however, in this case the use of independent\nexaminers does not insulate United from the decision because those ex‐\naminers did not consider the cognitive limitations and would still be lim‐\nited by the evidence and job descriptions provided by United.\n\fNo. 18‐2155 13\n\ning benefits, or engages in selective consideration of the evi‐\ndence. Raybourne v. Cigna Life Ins. Co. of New York, 700 F.3d\n1076, 1082 (7th Cir. 2012) quoting Glenn, 554 U.S. at 117;\nHolmstrom, 615 F.3d at 772, 777–78. For instance, where the\nadministrator assists the claimant in obtaining Social Security\ndisability benefits, arguing that she is unable to engage in any\nwork, and then after obtaining those benefits, denies disabil‐\nity benefits under its own plan, the self‐dealing can signal that\nthe administrator is acting in its own interests rather than that\nof the claimant. The Plan benefits in such a situation because\nit is often entitled to recover some of the Social Security bene‐\nfit awarded to the claimant, and it avoids the payment of\nmoney to the claimant in denying benefits under its own plan.\nWe have recognized that “this scenario justified the reviewing\ncourt in giving more weight to the conflict because the seem‐\ningly inconsistent positions taken by the insurer were both fi‐\nnancially advantageous to the insurer.” Raybourne, 700 F.3d at\n1088; Glenn, 554 U.S. at 118; Holmstrom, 615 F.3d at 777. Such\nconcordance between the actions and positions taken by the\nadministrator and its own financial interest suggest a higher\nlikelihood that the conflict of interest affected the benefits de‐\ncision. See Raybourne, 700 F.3d at 1088. That is the scenario\npresent in many cases in which we have held that the conflict\nof interest could have impacted the disability determination,\nbut there is no evidence that United engaged in self‐dealing\nof that nature here. United argues that Raybourne is inapplica‐\nble because that involvement in the social security process\nwas absent here, but that self‐dealing is merely one factor im‐\npacting the weight given to that structural conflict of interest,\nand does not mean that no structural conflict exists. Courts\nmust consider all surrounding circumstances in determining\n\f14 No. 18‐2155\n\nwhether that conflict of interest could have impacted the dis‐\nability determination.\n Another circumstance that should alert the court that the\nconflict of interest may have influenced the decision is found\nwhere the administrator engages in only a selective presenta‐\ntion of the evidence in the record, focusing on the portions\nthat will support a denial of the claim and ignoring or misrep‐\nresenting the facts that could demonstrate the disability. See\nHolmstrom, 615 F.3d at 777; Raybourne, 700 F.3d at 1082; Glenn,\n554 U.S. at 118. As we will discuss, this case does present such\na selective presentation of some of the evidence in the record.\nIn fact, the failure to consider some of the evidence requires a\nremand here even absent a consideration of the conflict of in‐\nterest, because it renders the decision arbitrary. Holmstrom,\n615 F.3d at 776–77 (in addition to showing that the conflict of\ninterest may have influenced the decision, selective consider‐\nation of the evidence can indicate that a decision was arbitrary\neven aside from that conflict). Although the conflict of interest\nis therefore a factor, which is weighed more heavily in light\nof that selective presentation of the evidence, that conflict\ndoes not act as a tiebreaker here because a remand is required\neven absent that conflict.\n B.\n We turn first to the claim that United failed to adequately\naddress the Social Security disability determination, because\nthat issue touches upon at least two other arguments pre‐\nsented by Lacko—namely, her argument as to the proper oc‐\ncupational description and her argument that United failed to\naddress the combination of impairments. SSA determined\nthat Lacko was entitled to benefits. That determination in‐\n\fNo. 18‐2155 15\n\nvolved the application of SSA’s five‐step sequential evalua‐\ntion process. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. Under the first three\nparts of the test, SSA determined that Lacko was not engaged\nin substantial gainful activity, that she had severe medically‐\ndeterminable impairments consisting of inflammatory arthri‐\ntis, disorders of back—discogenic and degenerative, chronic\nheart failure, and affective disorders, and that her impair‐\nments did not meet or equal a listing. See id. Before proceed‐\ning to the fourth step, the regulations require SSA to assess\nthe claimant’s residual functional capacity, which it then uses\nat steps four and five when evaluating the claim at those\nsteps. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). SSA conducted a physical re‐\nsidual functional capacity assessment and a mental residual\nfunctional capacity assessment (“MRFC”). The MRFC was\nconducted by Dr. Fritz and determined that Lacko had under‐\nstanding and memory limitations. Although he found that\nLacko was not significantly limited in her ability to remember\nlocations and work‐like procedures and her ability to under‐\nstand and remember very short and simple instructions, Dr.\nFritz concluded that she was moderately limited in her ability\nto understand and remember detailed instructions. He fur‐\nther concluded that she sustained concentration and persis‐\ntence limitations which rendered her moderately limited in\nher ability to carry out detailed instructions. Finally, he also\ndetermined that she had adaptation limitations, in that she\nwas moderately limited in her ability to respond appropri‐\nately to changes in the work setting.\n SSA applied that MRFC in considering at step four\nwhether she was capable of performing her past relevant\nwork. First, it identified the DOT title for her past relevant\nwork, determining that the job titles of Field Auditor and Ac‐\ncountant were proper. SSA determined that Lacko could not\n\f16 No. 18‐2155\n\nperform her past relevant work because her MRFC reduced\nher skill level. It determined that her past relevant work was\nskilled work, and that her impairments limited her to un‐\nskilled, light work.\n United and the district court both recognized that SSA had\nlimited her to light work, a higher level than the sedentary\nwork limitation that United found, but neither addressed her\nmental limitations. Neither United nor the district court\nacknowledged or addressed the determination that she was\nlimited to unskilled work based on the MRFC. In fact, the de‐\ncisions by United and the district court mischaracterized the\nSSA decision. United characterized Dr. Fritz’s evaluation as\nfinding no evidence of memory impairment or cognitive im‐\npairment, but that is unsupportable. The SSA decision, and\nspecifically the MRFC within it, found her moderately limited\nin her ability to understand and remember detailed instruc‐\ntions, carry out detailed instructions, and respond appropri‐\nately to changes in the work setting, and based on that MRFC\nshe was deemed limited to unskilled work and therefore un‐\nable to perform her past work which was skilled work. United\nnever acknowledged those memory and cognitive limitations\nfound by Dr. Fritz, nor the limitation to unskilled work that\nfollowed from that MRFC.\n Similarly, United again acknowledges only part of Dr.\nFritz’s findings on appeal, characterizing them as follows:\n A mental status assessment conducted on June\n 24, 2016 by Dr. Steven Fritz, Psy. D. found Ms.\n Lacko to have (1) sufficient attention and con‐\n centration to persist at and complete work activ‐\n ities for the usual periods required in the gen‐\n eral work force; (2) the capacity for adequate\n\fNo. 18‐2155 17\n\n pace and perseverance to maintain a schedule\n and on time attendance and (3) the capacity to\n complete a normal work day and work week on\n a regular basis. Dr. Fritz also determined that\n psychologically based symptoms would not\n markedly impair Ms. Lacko’s capacity to com‐\n plete a normal work week.\n(citations omitted) Appellee’s Brief at 22. That summary re‐\ncites the conclusions of Dr. Fritz as to her ability to fulfill the\nduties of unskilled work, but again fails to reflect the areas in\nwhich he found her moderately limited, and which precluded\nher from skilled work.\n And other than that mischaracterization of the mental lim‐\nitations, United in its denial of LTD benefits did not further\nattempt to reconcile the SSA determination that she was enti‐\ntled to disability benefits, dismissing it with one statement:\n“Eligibility requirements for Social Security Disability may\ndiffer from the eligibility requirements under this policy.” See\nDist. Ct. at 16. That trite statement is of no value in any anal‐\nysis. That something “may differ” from the Plan requirements\nsays nothing, as it is noncommittal as to whether there is any\nactual difference. It failed to identify any difference, and to\nexplain how that difference would impact the disability de‐\ntermination.\n On appeal, United argues that the SSA decision granting\nbenefits was based in part on her age, and that age is not a\nfactor under the Plan. The final decision by the SSA, at step\nfive of the sequential evaluation process, considers whether\nthe claimant is capable of making the adjustment to other\nwork, and the claimant receives disability benefits only if the\nSSA concludes that she is both not capable of performing her\n\f18 No. 18‐2155\n\npast relevant work and not capable of adjusting to other work.\nAt step five, the SSA considers factors such as age and educa‐\ntion, which are not factors in United’s determination of disa‐\nbility. That difference is irrelevant, however, because those\nfactors are not considered by the SSA at step four in determin‐\ning her ability to perform her past work, and that is the anal‐\nysis that equates with the Plan’s language. The question at\nstep four of the SSA evaluation process was whether Lacko\nwas capable of performing her past work as it is performed in\nthe national economy, and the Plan under which United de‐\nnied benefits similarly considers whether she was prevented\nfrom performing the material duties of her regular occupa‐\ntion. There is no apparent basis for determining that the SSA\ndetermination of her ability to perform past work is materi‐\nally different from the disability eligibility requirements for\nUnited. That discussion by United is insufficient to constitute\na reasoned consideration of Dr. Fritz’s evaluation or the SSA\ndecision as a whole.\n Moreover, the record lacks any mental or psychological\nevaluation that contradicts or casts doubt on the conclusions\nby Dr. Fritz, and United has never challenged or questioned\nthose findings. Those findings indicate that Lacko is incapable\nof performing an occupation that requires more than un‐\nskilled work. Unskilled work for SSA purposes is work that\n“requires little or no judgment to do simple duties that can be\nlearned on the job in a short period of time (30 days or less).”\nProgram Operations Manual System (POMS) DI 25015.017.\nSkilled work, in contrast, “[r]equires high levels of judgment\nand adaptability; [i]nvolves setting realistic goals or making\nplans independently; [r]equires understanding, carrying out,\nremembering complex instructions; [e]ncompasses abstract\n\fNo. 18‐2155 19\n\nideas and problem solving; … and requires both … work ac‐\ntivity exercising judgment beyond carrying out simple duties\n… and knowledge of principles and processes of an art, sci‐\nence, or applied trade and the ability to apply that knowledge\nin a proper and approved manner.” Id. There is no basis what‐\nsoever in the record to conclude that a job of Senior Manager\nfor the Audit Department is anything less than skilled work.\nTherefore, because United failed to recognize and address the\ncognitive limitations set forth in the SSA decision, there is no\nreasoned basis in the decision to support the determination\nthat Lacko was ineligible for disability benefits.\n The district court failed to address that deficiency in\nUnited’s analysis. In addressing the MRFC, the court stated\nthat “[t]he result of that evaluation was that plaintiff had suf‐\nficient concentration and attention to work,” and held that\nUnited’s analysis was therefore reasonable. Dist. Ct. at 24. On\nappeal, United continues in its selective characterization of\nthe SSA’s decision, stating that “[t]he SSA also found that Ms.\nLacko’s limitations as a result of her pain, weakness, fatigue\nand alleged understanding and memory difficulties had not\narisen to such level as to prevent her from participating in\nwork related activities.” Appellee’s Brief at 23. That of course\nis only partially true. The MRFC evaluation indeed deter‐\nmined that Lacko possessed sufficient concentration and at‐\ntention to “work” if the work was unskilled work. Her limita‐\ntions were not so severe as to preclude unskilled work. But it\ndetermined that she lacked the ability to perform her past rel‐\nevant work because it was skilled work. The district court,\nlike United, failed to recognize and address that significant\ndistinction, which is controlling for the purposes here of de‐\ntermining her ability to perform the job of Senior Manager.\nMoreover, the district court held that United accepted the\n\f20 No. 18‐2155\n\nfindings of Dr. Fritz. If, as the district court states, United ac‐\ncepted the determination of Dr. Fritz, then it would have to\naccept that Lacko possessed mental limitations that rendered\nher incapable of work other than unskilled work.\n C.\n In considering the SSA decision, United also failed to ad‐\ndress the different classification used by the SSA from the Dic‐\ntionary of Occupational Titles (4th ed. 1991) (“DOT”). The LTD\nplan required United to determine whether Lacko could per‐\nform her regular occupation, which it defined as not limited\nto her specific position, but “instead will be considered to be\na similar position or activity based on job descriptions in‐\ncluded in the [DOT].” In denying benefits, United character‐\nized her job as one of “189.167‐022 Manager, Department,” a\ngeneric classification under the DOT that falls under the gen‐\neral catchall category of “189 Miscellaneous Managers and\nOfficials, NEC.” According to the DOT, “[t]his group includes\nmiscellaneous managers and officials, not elsewhere classi‐\nfied.” DOT defines this position as applying to one who\n“[d]irects and coordinates, through subordinate supervisors,\ndepartment activities in commercial, industrial, or service es‐\ntablishment,” and the only reference to financial work is that\nit can include one who “[m]onitors and analyzes costs and\nprepares budget, using computer.” Dictionary of Occupational\nTitles 189 (4th ed. 1991)\n In contrast, the SSA classified Lacko’s job as falling under\n“160 Accountants, Auditors, and Related Occupations,”\nwhich falls under category 16 that “includes occupations con‐\ncerned with specialized administrative and managerial func‐\ntions which are common to many types of organizations,” and\n\fNo. 18‐2155 21\n\nspecifically “160.167‐038 Auditor, Tax” and “160.162‐018 Ac‐\ncountant.” The DOT provides that:\n This group includes occupations concerned\n with examining, analyzing, and interpreting ac‐\n counting records for the purpose of giving ad‐\n vice or preparing statements. It also includes oc‐\n cupations involved in devising or installing ac‐\n counting systems and advising on cost‐record‐\n ing systems or other financial and budgetary\n data.\nDictionary of Occupational Titles 160 (4th ed. 1991). The titles\nused by SSA therefore apply to the audit and accounting man‐\nagerial functions common to many organizations. Those ap‐\npear more directly related to the Senior Manager position at\nissue here.\n They also more closely align with the job description for\nthe position of Senior Manager in the Audit Department. The\nsummary of the job description by BKD, upon which the par‐\nties agree, provides that:\n The Senior Manager supervises Seniors, Associ‐\n ates, and Interns. He or she is responsible for au‐\n dit program approval, personnel scheduling,\n audit working papers review, financial state‐\n ment disclosure footnote approval, day to day\n client relationships, determination of billings\n for engagements, and evaluation of Interns, As‐\n sociates, and Seniors.\nDefendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Local Rule 56.1 Statement\nof Material Facts 12 at 5–7. That description indicates that the\nposition requires the specialized skills of an auditor rather\n\f22 No. 18‐2155\n\nthan solely managerial skills. In addition, the job description\nincludes the following list of “Essential Duties and Responsi‐\nbilities,” which more precisely delineate the job requirements:\n ‐ Manages multiple concurrent engagements\n without disruption or loss of control and\n within the time allotted\n ‐ Correctly completes and reviews routine audit\n engagement procedures in a timely and profes‐\n sional manner\n ‐ Demonstrates ability to recognize problems\n and proposes sensible solutions, with appro‐\n priate balance between clients’ needs and\n firm’s risk\n ‐ Establishes accountability for meeting as‐\n signed deadlines or budgets and provides\n advanced warning of variances\n ‐ Demonstrates proficiency/subject matter exper‐\n tise with industry‐specific technical standards,\n participation in specialty professional organiza‐\n tions and anticipates impact of specialty with cli‐\n ents and BKD teams\n ‐ Conducts and reviews technical research and ap‐\n plies research to findings within complex ac‐\n counting areas\n ‐ Proven ability to supervise and train other\n professionals\n ‐ Balances assigned workload between self\n and staff. Provides staff with timely perfor‐\n mance feedback\n\fNo. 18‐2155 23\n\n ‐ Develops contacts and referral sources\n through involvement in professional or civic\n community organizations as a committee\n member or board member\n ‐ Business Development: sells services to new\n and existing clients that provide value to cli‐\n ents, building client loyalty and satisfaction.\n(emphasis added) Id. As the italicized sections demonstrate,\nthe essential duties and responsibilities of Lacko’s position re‐\nquired technical and specialized expertise and included du‐\nties beyond the common supervisory duties of a manager,\nsuch as the duty to conduct technical research and apply re‐\nsearch to findings within complex accounting areas.\n United’s vocational expert nevertheless determined that\nonly the general, catchall “Manager, Department” title of the\nDOT was the most applicable. Tellingly, that vocational ex‐\npert’s listing of the material duties of Lacko’s position in‐\ncluded only the general summary of the job description set\nforth above, along with an exposition of such standard man‐\nagerial responsibilities as that of interviewing, hiring and\ntraining employees and appraising performance. Absent from\nthe Senior Manager job description set forth by United’s vo‐\ncational consultant is any mention of the “Essential Duties\nand Responsibilities,” including the more specialized and\ntechnical duties italicized above.\n In fact, nothing in the vocational expert’s description mir‐\nrors or even alludes to the technical and specialized duties\nitalicized above, which constitute 3 of the 10 essential job du‐\nties. Moreover, the essential nature of those duties is rein‐\nforced by the education and experience requirements of the\n\f24 No. 18‐2155\n\njob, which mandated that the Senior Manager have seven\nyears of public accounting experience or its equivalent, that\nshe have certification as a Certified Public Accountant (CPA),\nand that she maintain a current CPA license. The vocational\nexpert’s report fails to mention those job requirements, and\ntherefore could not properly determine whether the DOT oc‐\ncupation of “Manager, Department” was a “similar position\nor activity” to her specific position, as required under the LTD\nplan. Finally, although United’s vocational consultant dis‐\ncussed the physical demand characteristics of the occupation,\nidentifying it as at the sedentary exertion level, the consultant\nnever examined the mental characteristics of the occupation,\nwhich would have identified the skill level needed for the po‐\nsition.\n We have repeatedly condemned that type of selective con‐\nsideration of only the evidence that supports one outcome.\nSee Holmstrom, 615 F.3d at 777; Raybourne, 700 F.3d at 1082;\nGlenn, 554 U.S. at 118. The determination that Lacko’s job fell\nwithin the DOT title “Manager, Department” is rendered\nquestionable because the vocational expert’s job description\nfailed to include those essential duties that required her spe‐\ncialized audit and accounting skills, and failed to identify the\neducational and license requirements of the position. In light\nof that deficiency, the failure to acknowledge and reconcile\nthe alternative DOT title applied by SSA is even more egre‐\ngious. That, in turn, impacted the disability determination be‐\ncause United never engaged in a determination as to whether\nLacko had the mental and physical capacity to perform the\ntasks required of an Auditor or Accountant position under the\nDOT.\n\fNo. 18‐2155 25\n\n At a minimum, United should have addressed the DOT\nclassification used by the SSA. Moreover, United should have\nreconciled its choice of the more general DOT title in relation\nto all of the job requirements, including the requirement that\nLacko maintain a current CPA license.\n IV.\n Therefore, both in its assessment of Dr. Fritz’s evaluation,\nand its consideration of the DOT classification, United pro‐\nvided a selective characterization of the record that discussed\nonly the portions that would favor a determination that Lacko\nwas not disabled, and ignored or mischaracterized the por‐\ntions that would support a finding of disability. We have pre‐\nviously held that where an administrator is operating under\na conflict of interest, as United is here, such a selective analy‐\nsis is evidence that the conflict of interest may have impacted\nthe decision. See Holmstrom, 615 F.3d at 777; Raybourne, 700\nF.3d at 1082; see also Glenn, 554 U.S. at 118. The potential im‐\npact of that conflict of interest is a factor to consider in deter‐\nmining whether the decision was arbitrary. We note that the\nuse of third‐party reviewers, as United did here, can provide\nsome separation between the decision and that conflict of in‐\nterest, lessening the likelihood that the conflict impacted the\ndecision, but here that is of little value because those review‐\ners were not asked to opine as to the mental limitations nor is\nthere any indication that they received the proper description\nof the job requirements. In the end, however, our decision that\na remand is necessary does not depend on that conflict of in‐\nterest as the tipping point, because even absent a conflict of\ninterest the decision cannot be sustained based on the failure\nto properly characterize and address Dr. Fritz’s evaluation\nand the mental limitations, and the failure to address the DOT\n\f26 No. 18‐2155\n\nclassification used by the SSA. See Holmstrom, 615 F.3d at 773\n(a plan administrator must address the Social Security find‐\nings and evidence in the record and provide a reasonable ex‐\nplanation for discounting it).\n That determination is dispositive as well of Lacko’s claim\nthat United failed to address the combination of her impair‐\nments.2 United failed to discuss the mental limitations found\nby Dr. Fritz, and the impact of Lacko’s medications on her\ncognitive and physical functioning. Accordingly, United must\naddress the combination of all her impairments, including the\nimpact of medication and treatment for those ailments, on her\nability to perform the material duties of her regular occupa‐\ntion. That failure to consider the combination of impairments,\nincluding the mental limitations, on her ability to perform her\njob is fatal to the denial of STD benefits as well. Moreover, we\nwould note that the Plan’s requirement of a “change” in a per‐\nson’s physical or mental capacity in order to qualify for bene‐\nfits does not by its terms preclude a degenerative condition\nfrom qualifying a claimant for benefits. A condition can exist\nfor years, and only prevent a person from performing her job\nat a later point in time when the worsening condition proves\n\n\n\n2 Lacko also asserts that United erred in crediting the opinions of non‐\nexamining physicians over the opinions of her treating physicians, partic‐\nularly where the Plan allowed United to require Lacko to submit to an\nexamination from a physician of United’s choice. It is well‐established,\nhowever, that unlike disability claims under SSA, a plan administrator de‐\ntermining disability benefits is not required under ERISA to give special\ndeference to the opinions of treating physicians. Black & Decker Disability\nPlan v. Nord, 538 U.S. 822, 825 (2003).\n\fNo. 18‐2155 27\n\nunmanageable. The deterioration can be sufficient to consti‐\ntute a change in conditions under the plain language.\n The most common remedy when an ERISA plan adminis‐\ntrator’s benefits decision is deemed arbitrary is to remand the\nmatter for a fresh administrative decision, rather than to grant\nan outright award of benefits, and we believe that is the ap‐\npropriate remedy here. Holmstrom, 615 F.3d at 778; Hennen,\n904 F.3d at 542. A remand is necessary for United to reassess\nLacko’s claim in light of the deficiencies identified in this\nopinion.\n Accordingly, the decision of the district court is\nREVERSED and the case REMANDED for further proceed‐\nings consistent with this opinion.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Shirley Lacko v. United of Omaha Life Insurance\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-06-12\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18‐2155\\nSHIRLEY LACKO,\\n Plaintiff‐Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nUNITED OF OMAHA LIFE\\nINSURANCE COMPANY,\\n Defendant‐Appellee.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 1:17‐cv‐02100 — Jorge L. Alonso, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED NOVEMBER 5, 2018 — DECIDED JUNE 12, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before BAUER, ROVNER, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.\\n ROVNER, Circuit Judge. Shirley Lacko filed suit against\\nUnited of Omaha Life Insurance Company (“United”), chal‐\\nlenging United’s denial of her claims for short‐term and long‐\\nterm disability insurance. Those claims were brought pursu‐\\nant to group insurance policies issued by United to her em‐\\nployer, BKD, Inc., an accounting firm. Specifically, BKD pro‐\\n\\f2 No. 18‐2155\\n\\nvided two group insurance policies, Group Short Term Disa‐\\nbility Insurance Policy No. GUC‐ABF3 (the “STD” plan) and\\nthe Group Long Term Disability Insurance Policy No. GLTD‐\\nABF3 (the “LTD” plan). Both policies were issued by United,\\nwho also served as the claims review fiduciary for claims to\\nSTD and LTD benefits.\\n Lacko based her claims for STD and LTD benefits on the\\nadverse combination of a number of impairments, including\\nbut not limited to gastroparesis, diabetes, rheumatoid arthri‐\\ntis, congestive heart failure, breathing difficulties, anxiety,\\nmusculoskeletal impairments, and cognitive difficulties re‐\\nlated in part to the medication needed to manage the other\\nconditions. The district court opinion details the extensive\\nmedical evidence presented to United in support of Lacko’s\\ndisability benefits claims. It includes reports from numerous\\nphysicians, as well as objective evidence such as MRI, X‐ray,\\nand lab reports. An exhaustive recitation of that evidence,\\nhowever, is unnecessary to resolve the issues presented in this\\ncase. Therefore, we will set forth the evidence only to the ex‐\\ntent that it is necessary to decide the issues in this appeal and\\ndefer to the district court the more extensive recitation.\\n Although United initially approved her claims for STD\\nbenefits on three occasions for the time period spanning Oc‐\\ntober 12, 2015 through November 22, 2015, it denied STD ben‐\\nefits on June 16, 2016 for the period beyond November 22,\\n2015, concluding the records failed to demonstrate a change\\nin Lacko’s medical condition at the time she stopped working\\nor subsequently. United also denied her claim for LTD bene‐\\nfits. Lacko then filed this action in the district court under the\\nEmployee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA),\\n29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., challenging the denial of LTD benefits,\\n\\fNo. 18‐2155 3\\n\\nand the denial of STD benefits from the period of November\\n22, 2015 until December 27, 2015 (at which time LTD benefits\\nwould apply). The district court granted summary judgment\\nin favor of United, and Lacko now appeals that decision to\\nthis court.\\n I.\\n Lacko began working for the predecessor to BKD in ap‐\\nproximately January 1999 and worked until September 25,\\n2015. She applied for benefits under the STD plan on October\\n2, 2015. At the time that she ceased working, her position at\\nBKD was that of Senior Manager in the Audit Department,\\nwith an annual salary of $93,250.04.\\n The two disability plans covered different time periods.\\nThe first 90 days of disability are covered by the STD plan,\\nwhich in relevant part provides benefits when ,“because of an\\nInjury or Sickness, a significant change in Your mental or\\nphysical functional capacity has occurred in which: … You\\nare prevented from performing the Material Duties of Your\\nRegular Job (on a part‐time or full‐time basis) or are unable to\\nwork Full‐Time … .” STD Plan at 27. The STD plan defines\\n“Material Duties” as encompassing “the essential tasks, func‐\\ntions, and operations relating to Your Regular Job that cannot\\nbe reasonably omitted or modified,” and “Regular Job” is de‐\\nfined as “the occupation You are routinely performing when\\nYour Disability begins.” Id. at 28–29.\\n The LTD plan applies beyond that 90‐day period and in‐\\ncludes slightly different requirements. Instead of speaking in\\nterms of the claimant’s ability to perform her regular job, the\\nLTD plan provides benefits when the claimant is incapable of\\n\\f4 No. 18‐2155\\n\\nthe material duties of her regular occupation. Specifically, the\\nLTD plan provides:\\n Disability and Disabled means that because of\\n an Injury or Sickness, a significant change in\\n your mental or physical functional capacity has\\n occurred in which You are:\\n (a) prevented from performing at least\\n one of the Material Duties of Your Regu‐\\n lar Occupation on a part‐time or full‐time\\n basis; and\\n (b) unable to generate Current Earnings\\n which exceed 99% of Your Basic Monthly\\n Earnings due to that same Injury or Sick‐\\n ness. …\\n Material Duties means the essential tasks, func‐\\n tions, and operations relating to an occupation\\n that cannot be reasonably omitted or modified.\\n In no event will We consider working an aver‐\\n age of more than 40 hours per week in itself to\\n be part of material duties. One of the material\\n duties of Your Regular Occupation is the ability\\n to work for an employer on a full‐time basis. …\\n Regular Occupation means the occupation You\\n are routinely performing when Your Disability\\n begins. Your regular occupation is not limited to\\n the specific position You held with the Policy‐\\n holder, but will instead be considered to be a\\n similar position or activity based on job descrip‐\\n tions included in the most current edition of the\\n\\fNo. 18‐2155 5\\n\\n U.S. Department of Labor Dictionary of Occu‐\\n pational Titles (DOT). We have the right to sub‐\\n stitute or replace the DOT with a service or\\n other information that We determine of compa‐\\n rable purpose, with or without notice. To deter‐\\n mine Your regular occupation, We will look at\\n Your occupation as it is normally performed in\\n the national economy, instead of how work\\n tasks are performed for the specific employer, at\\n a specific location, or in a specific area or region.\\nLTD Plan at 29–31.\\n Therefore, Lacko’s entitlement to benefits under the LTD\\nplan hinges upon whether Lacko was capable of fulfilling the\\nmaterial duties of her regular occupation. That focus on her\\noccupation sets the stage for a major point of contention in\\nthis appeal, which is whether United used an appropriate oc‐\\ncupational classification in determining her eligibility for ben‐\\nefits. As we will explore in detail later, United classified her\\nposition as that of a Department Manager under the Diction‐\\nary of Occupational Titles (“DOT”), but the Social Security\\nAdministration (SSA) used a different DOT title in assessing\\nLacko’s claim for benefits, classifying her position as that of\\nan Auditor or Accountant.\\n After Lacko’s requests for STD and LTD benefits were de‐\\nnied, Lacko requested reconsideration of those determina‐\\ntions from United. With respect to the STD benefits claim,\\nUnited in that appeal considered the evidence as to her gas‐\\ntroparesis, back pain, and osteoarthritis, and determined that\\nshe was capable of performing the duties of her job.\\n\\f6 No. 18‐2155\\n\\n In appealing the denial of LTD benefits, Lacko provided\\nUnited with the SSA decision granting benefits, but United\\nagain determined that the denial of LTD benefits was appro‐\\npriate. In its determination denying that appeal regarding\\nLTD benefits, United stated that it had considered her claim\\nthat she was disabled due to chronic pain, fatigue, congestive\\nheart failure, hypertension, osteoarthritis, diabetes, asthma,\\ngastroparesis, sleep disturbance, vertigo, vitamin D defi‐\\nciency, anxiety and depression. United acknowledged that\\nthe file revealed a history of back pain and diffuse joint pain\\ncomplaints, and that MRI studies of the lumbar, thoracic, and\\ncervical spine documented multi‐level degenerative changes\\nwith disc bulging in some areas. Additionally, it noted that\\nX‐rays confirmed arthropathy in Lacko’s hands and feet. Ac‐\\ncordingly, United determined that she would be restricted to\\nsedentary work activities and should pursue continued treat‐\\nment for pain management. It also found that her obstructive\\nsleep apnea and the resulting fatigue could also support that\\nlimitation to sedentary work, and opined that her chronic ob‐\\nstructive pulmonary disease and asthma would not preclude\\nsedentary work activities. Although it recognized other med‐\\nical conditions, it did not find that they supported any further\\nlimitations. For instance, it recognized that she suffered from\\ndiabetes, but held that her diabetes was controlled with treat‐\\nment and regular visits to her endocrinologist and therefore\\nwould not require any restrictions or limitations. It also\\nacknowledged that she was diagnosed with chronic gastritis\\nand with gastroparesis due to diabetes requiring treatment\\nwith medications. United found no limitations related to her\\nvertigo or dizziness, or from cardiac conditions or hyperten‐\\nsion. Finally, United recognized that symptoms of anxiety,\\ndepression and memory loss had been reported. It held that\\n\\fNo. 18‐2155 7\\n\\nthere was no indication of an inability to perform the activities\\nof daily living or of cognitive issues or memory impairment\\nto preclude work activities. United noted that Lacko was eval‐\\nuated by Dr. Steven Fritz, Psy.D., for a mental residual func‐\\ntional capacity assessment as a part of the Social Security re‐\\nview, and it stated that the evaluation found no evidence of\\nmemory impairment or cognitive impairment. United\\nacknowledged that Lacko has multiple medical complaints\\nrequiring medication and regular visits to health providers,\\nbut tracking the language of the LTD plan, it held that it did\\nnot find evidence of a significant change in her physical or\\nmental functional capacity on or around her last date worked\\nto preclude her from continuing to perform the material du‐\\nties of her regular occupation. It conceded that she had been\\nfound disabled by the SSA and was receiving disability bene‐\\nfits but held that the SSA decision did not affect its disability\\ndetermination, stating only that “[e]ligibility requirements for\\nSocial Security Disability may differ from the eligibility re‐\\nquirements under this policy.”\\n II.\\n Lacko subsequently filed this ERISA action seeking STD\\nbenefits from November 22, 2015 through December 27, 2015,\\nand LTD benefits thereafter, under § 502 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C.\\n§ 1132(a)(1)(B), which provides that “[a] civil action may be\\nbrought … by a participant or beneficiary … to recover bene‐\\nfits due to him under the terms of his plan, to enforce his\\nrights under the terms of the plan, or to clarify his rights to\\nfuture benefits under the terms of the plan.” The district court\\ngranted summary judgment to United.\\n First, the court considered the decision as to STD benefits.\\nIt held that United denied STD benefits on the basis that there\\n\\f8 No. 18‐2155\\n\\nhad been no change in Lacko’s functional capacity that would\\nprevent her from performing her job. The court found that it\\nwas reasonable for United to focus on whether Lacko had ex‐\\nperienced a change in medical symptoms, because the plain\\nlanguage of the STD plan requires a change. According to the\\ncourt, when Lacko was first granted STD benefits by United,\\nit had received medical records from April 2015 that showed\\nLacko was “feeling good,” and records from September 2015\\nshowing that Lacko reported feeling pain all over, thus indi‐\\ncating a “change.” Subsequently, United received additional\\nmedical records which showed that Lacko had suffered gas‐\\ntroparesis since at least 2011, and degenerative disc disease\\nfrom at least 2013, and evidence that she had taken opiates for\\npain for a decade. The court held that “[g]iven that plaintiff’s\\nmedical conditions were of long duration, it was reasonable\\nfor defendant to conclude that plaintiff had not experienced a\\nchange in functional capacity.” Dist. Ct. Memorandum and\\nOrder of May 15, 2018 (hereinafter “Dist. Ct.”) at 20.\\n The court then turned to United’s denial of LTD benefits.\\nFirst, it held that United did not err in relying on the DOT for\\nher job description, because the LTD plan explicitly allows for\\nsuch an approach. The court also rejected the argument that\\nUnited erred in relying on the opinions of non‐examining\\nphysicians. The court noted that Lacko supplied medical rec‐\\nords from eight treating physicians, but six of them described\\nonly Lacko’s symptoms and diagnoses without translating\\nthose into work restrictions. Of the two doctors that described\\nwork restrictions, the court described one—Dr. Daniel\\nHirsen—as providing useful but imprecise information in\\nstating that Lacko was unable to sit for long periods of time\\ndue to neck and back pain and unable to do computer work\\ndue to joint swelling. The other doctor who identified work\\n\\fNo. 18‐2155 9\\n\\nrestrictions, Dr. Vanessa Hagan, checked boxes indiscrimi‐\\nnately, indicating that pain rendered her unable to perform\\nevery task on the list including basic tasks such as following\\nrules and relating to co‐workers. The court acknowledged\\nthat Dr. Hagan subsequently provided additional infor‐\\nmation about Lacko’s restrictions, stating that Lacko’s pain\\nmedication makes it difficult for her to focus such that she\\ncould not work if she took her medications as prescribed. The\\ncourt countered, however, that “[s]eparately and to the con‐\\ntrary, the Social Security Administration concluded that\\nplaintiff was capable of performing light‐duty work.” Id. at\\n23. Based on the competing conclusions and the imprecise re‐\\nstrictions, the court concluded that it was reasonable for\\nUnited to seek review of the records by non‐examining phy‐\\nsicians and adopt their conclusions that she was restricted to\\nsedentary work.\\n The court next considered whether United properly con‐\\nsidered her various ailments in combination when determin‐\\ning her restrictions. The court noted that the treating physi‐\\ncians had determined that her physical ailments limited her\\nto sedentary work. The court noted, however, that the seden‐\\ntary restriction related only to her physical capability, and\\nthat Dr. Hagan had noted, in describing the combined effect\\nof Lacko’s ailments, that the medications for those conditions\\naffected Lacko’s ability to focus. The court rejected Lacko’s ar‐\\ngument that United failed to take that mental impairment into\\naccount. The court noted that in its decision, United specifi‐\\ncally recognized that Lacko had seen Dr. Fritz for a mental\\nresidual capacity evaluation in connection with her applica‐\\ntion for Social Security benefits. The court stated that “[t]he\\n\\f10 No. 18‐2155\\n\\nresult of that evaluation was that plaintiff had sufficient con‐\\ncentration and attention to work.” Dist Ct. at 24. The court\\nheld that United’s analysis was therefore reasonable.\\n Finally, the court considered Lacko’s argument that the\\ndenial of benefits was arbitrary and capricious because\\nUnited failed to properly consider the SSA decision granting\\nher benefits. The court held that United reviewed that deci‐\\nsion and noted that the standard for disability benefits from\\nSSA is not the same as the terms of the Plan. In addition, the\\ncourt noted that the SSA decision concluded that Lacko could\\nperform light work, but granted benefits because her age, ed‐\\nucation and lack of transferable skills made an award manda‐\\ntory. The Plan in this case does not require benefits based on\\nage and skill. In conclusion, the court stated that United did\\nnot ignore the SSA decision; rather, United “reviewed the ev‐\\nidence, was persuaded by some of it (including Dr. Fritz’s as‐\\nsessment) and rejected some of it (including the conclusion\\nthat plaintiff could do light duty work; defendant concluded\\nplaintiff was more restricted).” Dist. Ct. at 25. The district\\ncourt therefore granted summary judgment to United.\\n III.\\n On appeal, Lacko raises a number of challenges to\\nUnited’s denial of her LTD and STD benefits. First, she alleges\\nthat United erred in concluding that there was no change in\\nher physical functional capacity which would prevent her\\nfrom performing the material duties of her job, and that it fur‐\\nther erred in using an incorrect occupational description. She\\nalso argues that United’s decision is deficient in that it failed\\nto adequately address the grant of Social Security disability\\nbenefits. Moreover, Lacko asserts that United, in denying ben‐\\nefits, failed to address the combination of impairments, and\\n\\fNo. 18‐2155 11\\n\\nimproperly relied on the opinions of non‐examining physi‐\\ncians who ignored objective medical evidence.\\n We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary\\njudgment. Hennen v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 904 F.3d 532, 539 (7th\\nCir. 2018); Holmstrom v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 615 F.3d 758,\\n766 (7th Cir. 2010). But where, as here, a plan grants to the\\nadministrator the discretionary authority to determine bene‐\\nfits, we review the decision of that administrator under the\\nmore stringent arbitrary and capricious standard. Id. Alt‐\\nhough that standard is necessarily deferential, it is “’not a rub‐\\nber stamp’” and we will not uphold an administrator’s deci‐\\nsion “’when there is an absence of reasoning in the record to\\nsupport it.’” Id.\\n A.\\n “In conducting this review, we remain cognizant of the\\nconflict of interest that exists when the administrator has both\\nthe discretionary authority to determine eligibility for bene‐\\nfits and the obligation to pay benefits when due.” Jenkins v.\\nPrice Waterhouse Long Term Disability Plan, 564 F.3d 856, 861\\n(7th Cir. 2009); Metro. Life Ins. v. Glenn, 554 U.S. 105, 112, 114\\n(2008); Hennen, 904 F.3d at 539; Dragus v. Reliance Standard Life\\nIns. Co., 882 F.3d 667, 673 (7th Cir. 2018). Both parties\\nacknowledge that United stands in that position, as the deter‐\\nminer of eligibility for benefits and the payor of benefits.\\n The Supreme Court and this court have clearly and con‐\\nsistently held that a conflict of interest is present where the\\nadministrator has both the authority to determine benefits\\nand the obligation to pay them, and that such a conflict is\\nweighed as a factor in determining whether there is an abuse\\n\\f12 No. 18‐2155\\n\\nof discretion, and can act as a tiebreaker when the other fac‐\\ntors are closely balanced. Glenn, 554 U.S. at 117; Hennen, 904\\nF.3d at 539; Dragus, 882 F.3d at 673. Surrounding circum‐\\nstances may increase or decrease the likelihood that the con‐\\nflict of interest impacted the disability determination. For in‐\\nstance, a conflict of interest “should prove less important (per‐\\nhaps to the vanishing point) where the administrator has\\ntaken active steps to reduce potential bias and to promote ac‐\\ncuracy, for example, by walling off claims administrators\\nfrom those interested in firm finances, or by imposing man‐\\nagement checks that penalize inaccurate decision‐making ir‐\\nrespective of whom the inaccuracy benefits.” Glenn, 554 U.S.\\nat 117. Similarly, the potential adverse impact of a conflict of\\ninterest can be ameliorated where an administrator uses sep‐\\narate third‐party vendors to secure independent physicians\\nwho then review the claim. See Dragus, 882 F.3d at 673. United\\nargues that it employed such procedures here, which can cre‐\\nate a distance between the conflict and the decision thus de‐\\ncreasing the likelihood that the disability determination was\\nimpacted by the conflict.1\\n In contrast, “a conflict may carry more weight when the\\n‘circumstances suggest a higher likelihood that it affected the\\nbenefits decision,’ as when an insurer has a history of biased\\nclaims administration,” takes inconsistent positions in the So‐\\ncial Security disability proceedings and its own disability de‐\\ntermination, constantly changes its demands to avoid award‐\\n\\n\\n\\n1 As we will discuss later, however, in this case the use of independent\\nexaminers does not insulate United from the decision because those ex‐\\naminers did not consider the cognitive limitations and would still be lim‐\\nited by the evidence and job descriptions provided by United.\\n\\fNo. 18‐2155 13\\n\\ning benefits, or engages in selective consideration of the evi‐\\ndence. Raybourne v. Cigna Life Ins. Co. of New York, 700 F.3d\\n1076, 1082 (7th Cir. 2012) quoting Glenn, 554 U.S. at 117;\\nHolmstrom, 615 F.3d at 772, 777–78. For instance, where the\\nadministrator assists the claimant in obtaining Social Security\\ndisability benefits, arguing that she is unable to engage in any\\nwork, and then after obtaining those benefits, denies disabil‐\\nity benefits under its own plan, the self‐dealing can signal that\\nthe administrator is acting in its own interests rather than that\\nof the claimant. The Plan benefits in such a situation because\\nit is often entitled to recover some of the Social Security bene‐\\nfit awarded to the claimant, and it avoids the payment of\\nmoney to the claimant in denying benefits under its own plan.\\nWe have recognized that “this scenario justified the reviewing\\ncourt in giving more weight to the conflict because the seem‐\\ningly inconsistent positions taken by the insurer were both fi‐\\nnancially advantageous to the insurer.” Raybourne, 700 F.3d at\\n1088; Glenn, 554 U.S. at 118; Holmstrom, 615 F.3d at 777. Such\\nconcordance between the actions and positions taken by the\\nadministrator and its own financial interest suggest a higher\\nlikelihood that the conflict of interest affected the benefits de‐\\ncision. See Raybourne, 700 F.3d at 1088. That is the scenario\\npresent in many cases in which we have held that the conflict\\nof interest could have impacted the disability determination,\\nbut there is no evidence that United engaged in self‐dealing\\nof that nature here. United argues that Raybourne is inapplica‐\\nble because that involvement in the social security process\\nwas absent here, but that self‐dealing is merely one factor im‐\\npacting the weight given to that structural conflict of interest,\\nand does not mean that no structural conflict exists. Courts\\nmust consider all surrounding circumstances in determining\\n\\f14 No. 18‐2155\\n\\nwhether that conflict of interest could have impacted the dis‐\\nability determination.\\n Another circumstance that should alert the court that the\\nconflict of interest may have influenced the decision is found\\nwhere the administrator engages in only a selective presenta‐\\ntion of the evidence in the record, focusing on the portions\\nthat will support a denial of the claim and ignoring or misrep‐\\nresenting the facts that could demonstrate the disability. See\\nHolmstrom, 615 F.3d at 777; Raybourne, 700 F.3d at 1082; Glenn,\\n554 U.S. at 118. As we will discuss, this case does present such\\na selective presentation of some of the evidence in the record.\\nIn fact, the failure to consider some of the evidence requires a\\nremand here even absent a consideration of the conflict of in‐\\nterest, because it renders the decision arbitrary. Holmstrom,\\n615 F.3d at 776–77 (in addition to showing that the conflict of\\ninterest may have influenced the decision, selective consider‐\\nation of the evidence can indicate that a decision was arbitrary\\neven aside from that conflict). Although the conflict of interest\\nis therefore a factor, which is weighed more heavily in light\\nof that selective presentation of the evidence, that conflict\\ndoes not act as a tiebreaker here because a remand is required\\neven absent that conflict.\\n B.\\n We turn first to the claim that United failed to adequately\\naddress the Social Security disability determination, because\\nthat issue touches upon at least two other arguments pre‐\\nsented by Lacko—namely, her argument as to the proper oc‐\\ncupational description and her argument that United failed to\\naddress the combination of impairments. SSA determined\\nthat Lacko was entitled to benefits. That determination in‐\\n\\fNo. 18‐2155 15\\n\\nvolved the application of SSA’s five‐step sequential evalua‐\\ntion process. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. Under the first three\\nparts of the test, SSA determined that Lacko was not engaged\\nin substantial gainful activity, that she had severe medically‐\\ndeterminable impairments consisting of inflammatory arthri‐\\ntis, disorders of back—discogenic and degenerative, chronic\\nheart failure, and affective disorders, and that her impair‐\\nments did not meet or equal a listing. See id. Before proceed‐\\ning to the fourth step, the regulations require SSA to assess\\nthe claimant’s residual functional capacity, which it then uses\\nat steps four and five when evaluating the claim at those\\nsteps. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). SSA conducted a physical re‐\\nsidual functional capacity assessment and a mental residual\\nfunctional capacity assessment (“MRFC”). The MRFC was\\nconducted by Dr. Fritz and determined that Lacko had under‐\\nstanding and memory limitations. Although he found that\\nLacko was not significantly limited in her ability to remember\\nlocations and work‐like procedures and her ability to under‐\\nstand and remember very short and simple instructions, Dr.\\nFritz concluded that she was moderately limited in her ability\\nto understand and remember detailed instructions. He fur‐\\nther concluded that she sustained concentration and persis‐\\ntence limitations which rendered her moderately limited in\\nher ability to carry out detailed instructions. Finally, he also\\ndetermined that she had adaptation limitations, in that she\\nwas moderately limited in her ability to respond appropri‐\\nately to changes in the work setting.\\n SSA applied that MRFC in considering at step four\\nwhether she was capable of performing her past relevant\\nwork. First, it identified the DOT title for her past relevant\\nwork, determining that the job titles of Field Auditor and Ac‐\\ncountant were proper. SSA determined that Lacko could not\\n\\f16 No. 18‐2155\\n\\nperform her past relevant work because her MRFC reduced\\nher skill level. It determined that her past relevant work was\\nskilled work, and that her impairments limited her to un‐\\nskilled, light work.\\n United and the district court both recognized that SSA had\\nlimited her to light work, a higher level than the sedentary\\nwork limitation that United found, but neither addressed her\\nmental limitations. Neither United nor the district court\\nacknowledged or addressed the determination that she was\\nlimited to unskilled work based on the MRFC. In fact, the de‐\\ncisions by United and the district court mischaracterized the\\nSSA decision. United characterized Dr. Fritz’s evaluation as\\nfinding no evidence of memory impairment or cognitive im‐\\npairment, but that is unsupportable. The SSA decision, and\\nspecifically the MRFC within it, found her moderately limited\\nin her ability to understand and remember detailed instruc‐\\ntions, carry out detailed instructions, and respond appropri‐\\nately to changes in the work setting, and based on that MRFC\\nshe was deemed limited to unskilled work and therefore un‐\\nable to perform her past work which was skilled work. United\\nnever acknowledged those memory and cognitive limitations\\nfound by Dr. Fritz, nor the limitation to unskilled work that\\nfollowed from that MRFC.\\n Similarly, United again acknowledges only part of Dr.\\nFritz’s findings on appeal, characterizing them as follows:\\n A mental status assessment conducted on June\\n 24, 2016 by Dr. Steven Fritz, Psy. D. found Ms.\\n Lacko to have (1) sufficient attention and con‐\\n centration to persist at and complete work activ‐\\n ities for the usual periods required in the gen‐\\n eral work force; (2) the capacity for adequate\\n\\fNo. 18‐2155 17\\n\\n pace and perseverance to maintain a schedule\\n and on time attendance and (3) the capacity to\\n complete a normal work day and work week on\\n a regular basis. Dr. Fritz also determined that\\n psychologically based symptoms would not\\n markedly impair Ms. Lacko’s capacity to com‐\\n plete a normal work week.\\n(citations omitted) Appellee’s Brief at 22. That summary re‐\\ncites the conclusions of Dr. Fritz as to her ability to fulfill the\\nduties of unskilled work, but again fails to reflect the areas in\\nwhich he found her moderately limited, and which precluded\\nher from skilled work.\\n And other than that mischaracterization of the mental lim‐\\nitations, United in its denial of LTD benefits did not further\\nattempt to reconcile the SSA determination that she was enti‐\\ntled to disability benefits, dismissing it with one statement:\\n“Eligibility requirements for Social Security Disability may\\ndiffer from the eligibility requirements under this policy.” See\\nDist. Ct. at 16. That trite statement is of no value in any anal‐\\nysis. That something “may differ” from the Plan requirements\\nsays nothing, as it is noncommittal as to whether there is any\\nactual difference. It failed to identify any difference, and to\\nexplain how that difference would impact the disability de‐\\ntermination.\\n On appeal, United argues that the SSA decision granting\\nbenefits was based in part on her age, and that age is not a\\nfactor under the Plan. The final decision by the SSA, at step\\nfive of the sequential evaluation process, considers whether\\nthe claimant is capable of making the adjustment to other\\nwork, and the claimant receives disability benefits only if the\\nSSA concludes that she is both not capable of performing her\\n\\f18 No. 18‐2155\\n\\npast relevant work and not capable of adjusting to other work.\\nAt step five, the SSA considers factors such as age and educa‐\\ntion, which are not factors in United’s determination of disa‐\\nbility. That difference is irrelevant, however, because those\\nfactors are not considered by the SSA at step four in determin‐\\ning her ability to perform her past work, and that is the anal‐\\nysis that equates with the Plan’s language. The question at\\nstep four of the SSA evaluation process was whether Lacko\\nwas capable of performing her past work as it is performed in\\nthe national economy, and the Plan under which United de‐\\nnied benefits similarly considers whether she was prevented\\nfrom performing the material duties of her regular occupa‐\\ntion. There is no apparent basis for determining that the SSA\\ndetermination of her ability to perform past work is materi‐\\nally different from the disability eligibility requirements for\\nUnited. That discussion by United is insufficient to constitute\\na reasoned consideration of Dr. Fritz’s evaluation or the SSA\\ndecision as a whole.\\n Moreover, the record lacks any mental or psychological\\nevaluation that contradicts or casts doubt on the conclusions\\nby Dr. Fritz, and United has never challenged or questioned\\nthose findings. Those findings indicate that Lacko is incapable\\nof performing an occupation that requires more than un‐\\nskilled work. Unskilled work for SSA purposes is work that\\n“requires little or no judgment to do simple duties that can be\\nlearned on the job in a short period of time (30 days or less).”\\nProgram Operations Manual System (POMS) DI 25015.017.\\nSkilled work, in contrast, “[r]equires high levels of judgment\\nand adaptability; [i]nvolves setting realistic goals or making\\nplans independently; [r]equires understanding, carrying out,\\nremembering complex instructions; [e]ncompasses abstract\\n\\fNo. 18‐2155 19\\n\\nideas and problem solving; … and requires both … work ac‐\\ntivity exercising judgment beyond carrying out simple duties\\n… and knowledge of principles and processes of an art, sci‐\\nence, or applied trade and the ability to apply that knowledge\\nin a proper and approved manner.” Id. There is no basis what‐\\nsoever in the record to conclude that a job of Senior Manager\\nfor the Audit Department is anything less than skilled work.\\nTherefore, because United failed to recognize and address the\\ncognitive limitations set forth in the SSA decision, there is no\\nreasoned basis in the decision to support the determination\\nthat Lacko was ineligible for disability benefits.\\n The district court failed to address that deficiency in\\nUnited’s analysis. In addressing the MRFC, the court stated\\nthat “[t]he result of that evaluation was that plaintiff had suf‐\\nficient concentration and attention to work,” and held that\\nUnited’s analysis was therefore reasonable. Dist. Ct. at 24. On\\nappeal, United continues in its selective characterization of\\nthe SSA’s decision, stating that “[t]he SSA also found that Ms.\\nLacko’s limitations as a result of her pain, weakness, fatigue\\nand alleged understanding and memory difficulties had not\\narisen to such level as to prevent her from participating in\\nwork related activities.” Appellee’s Brief at 23. That of course\\nis only partially true. The MRFC evaluation indeed deter‐\\nmined that Lacko possessed sufficient concentration and at‐\\ntention to “work” if the work was unskilled work. Her limita‐\\ntions were not so severe as to preclude unskilled work. But it\\ndetermined that she lacked the ability to perform her past rel‐\\nevant work because it was skilled work. The district court,\\nlike United, failed to recognize and address that significant\\ndistinction, which is controlling for the purposes here of de‐\\ntermining her ability to perform the job of Senior Manager.\\nMoreover, the district court held that United accepted the\\n\\f20 No. 18‐2155\\n\\nfindings of Dr. Fritz. If, as the district court states, United ac‐\\ncepted the determination of Dr. Fritz, then it would have to\\naccept that Lacko possessed mental limitations that rendered\\nher incapable of work other than unskilled work.\\n C.\\n In considering the SSA decision, United also failed to ad‐\\ndress the different classification used by the SSA from the Dic‐\\ntionary of Occupational Titles (4th ed. 1991) (“DOT”). The LTD\\nplan required United to determine whether Lacko could per‐\\nform her regular occupation, which it defined as not limited\\nto her specific position, but “instead will be considered to be\\na similar position or activity based on job descriptions in‐\\ncluded in the [DOT].” In denying benefits, United character‐\\nized her job as one of “189.167‐022 Manager, Department,” a\\ngeneric classification under the DOT that falls under the gen‐\\neral catchall category of “189 Miscellaneous Managers and\\nOfficials, NEC.” According to the DOT, “[t]his group includes\\nmiscellaneous managers and officials, not elsewhere classi‐\\nfied.” DOT defines this position as applying to one who\\n“[d]irects and coordinates, through subordinate supervisors,\\ndepartment activities in commercial, industrial, or service es‐\\ntablishment,” and the only reference to financial work is that\\nit can include one who “[m]onitors and analyzes costs and\\nprepares budget, using computer.” Dictionary of Occupational\\nTitles 189 (4th ed. 1991)\\n In contrast, the SSA classified Lacko’s job as falling under\\n“160 Accountants, Auditors, and Related Occupations,”\\nwhich falls under category 16 that “includes occupations con‐\\ncerned with specialized administrative and managerial func‐\\ntions which are common to many types of organizations,” and\\n\\fNo. 18‐2155 21\\n\\nspecifically “160.167‐038 Auditor, Tax” and “160.162‐018 Ac‐\\ncountant.” The DOT provides that:\\n This group includes occupations concerned\\n with examining, analyzing, and interpreting ac‐\\n counting records for the purpose of giving ad‐\\n vice or preparing statements. It also includes oc‐\\n cupations involved in devising or installing ac‐\\n counting systems and advising on cost‐record‐\\n ing systems or other financial and budgetary\\n data.\\nDictionary of Occupational Titles 160 (4th ed. 1991). The titles\\nused by SSA therefore apply to the audit and accounting man‐\\nagerial functions common to many organizations. Those ap‐\\npear more directly related to the Senior Manager position at\\nissue here.\\n They also more closely align with the job description for\\nthe position of Senior Manager in the Audit Department. The\\nsummary of the job description by BKD, upon which the par‐\\nties agree, provides that:\\n The Senior Manager supervises Seniors, Associ‐\\n ates, and Interns. He or she is responsible for au‐\\n dit program approval, personnel scheduling,\\n audit working papers review, financial state‐\\n ment disclosure footnote approval, day to day\\n client relationships, determination of billings\\n for engagements, and evaluation of Interns, As‐\\n sociates, and Seniors.\\nDefendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Local Rule 56.1 Statement\\nof Material Facts 12 at 5–7. That description indicates that the\\nposition requires the specialized skills of an auditor rather\\n\\f22 No. 18‐2155\\n\\nthan solely managerial skills. In addition, the job description\\nincludes the following list of “Essential Duties and Responsi‐\\nbilities,” which more precisely delineate the job requirements:\\n ‐ Manages multiple concurrent engagements\\n without disruption or loss of control and\\n within the time allotted\\n ‐ Correctly completes and reviews routine audit\\n engagement procedures in a timely and profes‐\\n sional manner\\n ‐ Demonstrates ability to recognize problems\\n and proposes sensible solutions, with appro‐\\n priate balance between clients’ needs and\\n firm’s risk\\n ‐ Establishes accountability for meeting as‐\\n signed deadlines or budgets and provides\\n advanced warning of variances\\n ‐ Demonstrates proficiency/subject matter exper‐\\n tise with industry‐specific technical standards,\\n participation in specialty professional organiza‐\\n tions and anticipates impact of specialty with cli‐\\n ents and BKD teams\\n ‐ Conducts and reviews technical research and ap‐\\n plies research to findings within complex ac‐\\n counting areas\\n ‐ Proven ability to supervise and train other\\n professionals\\n ‐ Balances assigned workload between self\\n and staff. Provides staff with timely perfor‐\\n mance feedback\\n\\fNo. 18‐2155 23\\n\\n ‐ Develops contacts and referral sources\\n through involvement in professional or civic\\n community organizations as a committee\\n member or board member\\n ‐ Business Development: sells services to new\\n and existing clients that provide value to cli‐\\n ents, building client loyalty and satisfaction.\\n(emphasis added) Id. As the italicized sections demonstrate,\\nthe essential duties and responsibilities of Lacko’s position re‐\\nquired technical and specialized expertise and included du‐\\nties beyond the common supervisory duties of a manager,\\nsuch as the duty to conduct technical research and apply re‐\\nsearch to findings within complex accounting areas.\\n United’s vocational expert nevertheless determined that\\nonly the general, catchall “Manager, Department” title of the\\nDOT was the most applicable. Tellingly, that vocational ex‐\\npert’s listing of the material duties of Lacko’s position in‐\\ncluded only the general summary of the job description set\\nforth above, along with an exposition of such standard man‐\\nagerial responsibilities as that of interviewing, hiring and\\ntraining employees and appraising performance. Absent from\\nthe Senior Manager job description set forth by United’s vo‐\\ncational consultant is any mention of the “Essential Duties\\nand Responsibilities,” including the more specialized and\\ntechnical duties italicized above.\\n In fact, nothing in the vocational expert’s description mir‐\\nrors or even alludes to the technical and specialized duties\\nitalicized above, which constitute 3 of the 10 essential job du‐\\nties. Moreover, the essential nature of those duties is rein‐\\nforced by the education and experience requirements of the\\n\\f24 No. 18‐2155\\n\\njob, which mandated that the Senior Manager have seven\\nyears of public accounting experience or its equivalent, that\\nshe have certification as a Certified Public Accountant (CPA),\\nand that she maintain a current CPA license. The vocational\\nexpert’s report fails to mention those job requirements, and\\ntherefore could not properly determine whether the DOT oc‐\\ncupation of “Manager, Department” was a “similar position\\nor activity” to her specific position, as required under the LTD\\nplan. Finally, although United’s vocational consultant dis‐\\ncussed the physical demand characteristics of the occupation,\\nidentifying it as at the sedentary exertion level, the consultant\\nnever examined the mental characteristics of the occupation,\\nwhich would have identified the skill level needed for the po‐\\nsition.\\n We have repeatedly condemned that type of selective con‐\\nsideration of only the evidence that supports one outcome.\\nSee Holmstrom, 615 F.3d at 777; Raybourne, 700 F.3d at 1082;\\nGlenn, 554 U.S. at 118. The determination that Lacko’s job fell\\nwithin the DOT title “Manager, Department” is rendered\\nquestionable because the vocational expert’s job description\\nfailed to include those essential duties that required her spe‐\\ncialized audit and accounting skills, and failed to identify the\\neducational and license requirements of the position. In light\\nof that deficiency, the failure to acknowledge and reconcile\\nthe alternative DOT title applied by SSA is even more egre‐\\ngious. That, in turn, impacted the disability determination be‐\\ncause United never engaged in a determination as to whether\\nLacko had the mental and physical capacity to perform the\\ntasks required of an Auditor or Accountant position under the\\nDOT.\\n\\fNo. 18‐2155 25\\n\\n At a minimum, United should have addressed the DOT\\nclassification used by the SSA. Moreover, United should have\\nreconciled its choice of the more general DOT title in relation\\nto all of the job requirements, including the requirement that\\nLacko maintain a current CPA license.\\n IV.\\n Therefore, both in its assessment of Dr. Fritz’s evaluation,\\nand its consideration of the DOT classification, United pro‐\\nvided a selective characterization of the record that discussed\\nonly the portions that would favor a determination that Lacko\\nwas not disabled, and ignored or mischaracterized the por‐\\ntions that would support a finding of disability. We have pre‐\\nviously held that where an administrator is operating under\\na conflict of interest, as United is here, such a selective analy‐\\nsis is evidence that the conflict of interest may have impacted\\nthe decision. See Holmstrom, 615 F.3d at 777; Raybourne, 700\\nF.3d at 1082; see also Glenn, 554 U.S. at 118. The potential im‐\\npact of that conflict of interest is a factor to consider in deter‐\\nmining whether the decision was arbitrary. We note that the\\nuse of third‐party reviewers, as United did here, can provide\\nsome separation between the decision and that conflict of in‐\\nterest, lessening the likelihood that the conflict impacted the\\ndecision, but here that is of little value because those review‐\\ners were not asked to opine as to the mental limitations nor is\\nthere any indication that they received the proper description\\nof the job requirements. In the end, however, our decision that\\na remand is necessary does not depend on that conflict of in‐\\nterest as the tipping point, because even absent a conflict of\\ninterest the decision cannot be sustained based on the failure\\nto properly characterize and address Dr. Fritz’s evaluation\\nand the mental limitations, and the failure to address the DOT\\n\\f26 No. 18‐2155\\n\\nclassification used by the SSA. See Holmstrom, 615 F.3d at 773\\n(a plan administrator must address the Social Security find‐\\nings and evidence in the record and provide a reasonable ex‐\\nplanation for discounting it).\\n That determination is dispositive as well of Lacko’s claim\\nthat United failed to address the combination of her impair‐\\nments.2 United failed to discuss the mental limitations found\\nby Dr. Fritz, and the impact of Lacko’s medications on her\\ncognitive and physical functioning. Accordingly, United must\\naddress the combination of all her impairments, including the\\nimpact of medication and treatment for those ailments, on her\\nability to perform the material duties of her regular occupa‐\\ntion. That failure to consider the combination of impairments,\\nincluding the mental limitations, on her ability to perform her\\njob is fatal to the denial of STD benefits as well. Moreover, we\\nwould note that the Plan’s requirement of a “change” in a per‐\\nson’s physical or mental capacity in order to qualify for bene‐\\nfits does not by its terms preclude a degenerative condition\\nfrom qualifying a claimant for benefits. A condition can exist\\nfor years, and only prevent a person from performing her job\\nat a later point in time when the worsening condition proves\\n\\n\\n\\n2 Lacko also asserts that United erred in crediting the opinions of non‐\\nexamining physicians over the opinions of her treating physicians, partic‐\\nularly where the Plan allowed United to require Lacko to submit to an\\nexamination from a physician of United’s choice. It is well‐established,\\nhowever, that unlike disability claims under SSA, a plan administrator de‐\\ntermining disability benefits is not required under ERISA to give special\\ndeference to the opinions of treating physicians. Black & Decker Disability\\nPlan v. Nord, 538 U.S. 822, 825 (2003).\\n\\fNo. 18‐2155 27\\n\\nunmanageable. The deterioration can be sufficient to consti‐\\ntute a change in conditions under the plain language.\\n The most common remedy when an ERISA plan adminis‐\\ntrator’s benefits decision is deemed arbitrary is to remand the\\nmatter for a fresh administrative decision, rather than to grant\\nan outright award of benefits, and we believe that is the ap‐\\npropriate remedy here. Holmstrom, 615 F.3d at 778; Hennen,\\n904 F.3d at 542. A remand is necessary for United to reassess\\nLacko’s claim in light of the deficiencies identified in this\\nopinion.\\n Accordingly, the decision of the district court is\\nREVERSED and the case REMANDED for further proceed‐\\nings consistent with this opinion.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2570,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4628870,"string":"4,628,870"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Leonte Williams v. Vipin Shah"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-06-12"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-2439"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before BAUER, ROVNER, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Ilana Kara Diamond Rovner\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\nNo. 18-2439\\n\\nLEONTE WILLIAMS,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n\\n v.\\n\\n\\nVIPIN SHAH, SUZANN BAILEY,\\nJOHN BALDWIN, and JACQUELINE\\nLASHBROOK,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Southern District of Illinois.\\n No. 3:15-cv-1278-SMY-RJD — Staci M. Yandle, Judge.\\n\\n\\n\\n ARGUED MARCH 26, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 12, 2019\\n\\n\\n Before BAUER, ROVNER, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\\n ROVNER, Circuit Judge. Leonte Williams, an inmate in the\\ncustody of the Illinois Department of Corrections, sued a\\nnumber of prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that\\nthey violated his Eighth Amendment rights by providing\\n\\f2 No. 18-2439\\n\\ninadequate nutrition through a “brunch” program that served\\nonly two meals a day. The district court granted summary\\njudgment in favor of the defendants. Because the record\\nestablishes without dispute that the brunch program was\\nadequate as designed and also because Williams lacks evidence\\nthat any of the defendants knew that he was allegedly not\\nreceiving adequate nutrition, we affirm.\\n I.\\n During the relevant time period, Williams was incarcerated\\nat Pinckneyville Correctional Center in southern Illinois.\\nDuring four or five months of Williams’ stay at Pinckneyville,\\nthe facility participated in a pilot “brunch” program designed\\nby Suzann Bailey, a licensed dietician and the Food Service\\nAdministrator for the Illinois Department of Corrections\\n(“Department”). Prior to the brunch program, Illinois prisons\\nused a regular meal plan that consisted of three meals per day,\\nwith “Master Menus” formulated by Bailey to provide approx-\\nimately 2200 to 2400 calories per day, including a minimum of\\nsix ounces of protein per day. Dietary Managers at each\\ncorrectional facility in Illinois were required to follow Bailey’s\\nMaster Menus as closely as possible, making substitutions\\nwhen necessary and replacing unavailable items with compa-\\nrable foods.\\n The brunch program provided two meals per day rather\\nthan three, combining breakfast and lunch into a single meal.\\nBailey designed a set of Master Menus for the brunch program\\nthat were formulated to provide the same 2200 to 2400 calories\\nper day as the three-meal plan, including at least eight ounces\\nof protein (a two ounce increase over the regular three-meal\\n\\fNo. 18-2439 3\\n\\nplan), and at least five servings of fruits or vegetables per day.\\nAs with the regular meal plan, Dietary Managers at the\\ncorrectional centers were charged with implementing these\\nMaster Menus as closely as possible, again with allowances for\\nsubstitutions of like items when planned foods were not\\navailable. In Bailey’s professional opinion, two meals contain-\\ning 2200 to 2400 calories, including eight ounces of protein,\\nwould provide adequate nutrition to individuals who were\\notherwise healthy and not in need of specific dietary accommo-\\ndations for medical conditions. For persons having special\\ndietary needs, the Department allowed therapeutic dietary\\ntrays as prescribed by physicians. At Pinckneyville, the brunch\\nmeal was served at 10:30 or 11:00 a.m. and dinner was served\\napproximately six hours later.\\n Williams was subject to the pilot program from his arrival\\nat the prison in July 2015 until the brunch program terminated\\nin December 2015, apparently due to cost concerns. During\\nthat time, Williams filed multiple grievances complaining that\\nthe prison’s food was making him ill. He mainly objected to the\\nuse of soy protein, asserting that it caused him stomach pain,\\nconstipation, diarrhea, migraine headaches, and excessive gas.\\nHe sometimes added in his grievances that he received only\\n1600 calories per day or fewer than 2800 calories per day, and\\nrequested that he be served breakfast.1 He also com\\n\\n1\\n Williams asserts that the Department’s own regulations require that\\nprisoners receive 2800 calories per day, citing Hall v. Sutton, 2012 WL\\n407244 (S.D. Ill. Feb. 8, 2012). In that case, the inmate plaintiff alleged in his\\ncomplaint that Department policy required a menu providing 2800 calories\\nper day. The court assumed that number to be correct for the purposes of\\n (continued...)\\n\\f4 No. 18-2439\\n\\nplained that nurses on medical call mistreated him, and that\\nthe prison’s physician refused to prescribe a soy-free diet and\\nwould not provide medical tests that Williams believed he\\nneeded. The primary relief that he sought was the cessation of\\nthe soy-based diet, thyroid testing and money damages, but he\\nsometimes requested that he be served three meals per day and\\nmore calories.\\n His grievances were not resolved to his satisfaction and he\\nfiled suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against Food Service Admin-\\nistrator Suzann Bailey, Warden Jacqueline Lashbrook, Depart-\\nment Director John Baldwin, and Dr. Vipin Shah, the prison’s\\ndoctor. Williams asserted that: (1) Baldwin, Bailey and\\nLashbrook violated his Eighth Amendment rights by serving\\nhim soy-based meals that made him ill; (2) Shah violated his\\nEighth Amendment rights through deliberate indifference to\\nhis serious medical needs; and (3) Baldwin, Bailey and\\nLashbrook violated his Eighth Amendment rights by institut-\\ning a nutritionally inadequate brunch program. The district\\ncourt granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants.\\nWilliams appeals.\\n\\n\\n\\n1\\n (...continued)\\nassessing whether the complaint stated a claim upon which relief could be\\ngranted. Current Department regulations provide that, “Food must be of\\nsufficient nutritional value and provide a minimum of 1,800 to 2,000\\ncalories for adults and 2,500 to 3,000 calories for juveniles per day.” 20 Ill.\\nAdmin. Code 701.110 (a)(1). Williams does not assert that he is a juvenile.\\nIn any case, section 1983 protects plaintiffs from constitutional violations,\\nnot violations of state law or departmental regulations. Thompson v. City of\\nChicago, 472 F.3d 444, 454 (7th Cir. 2006).\\n\\fNo. 18-2439 5\\n\\n II.\\n On appeal, Williams challenges the judgment only as it\\nrelates to the brunch program count against defendants\\nBaldwin, Bailey and Lashbrook.2 We review the district court's\\ngrant of summary judgment de novo, examining the record in\\nthe light most favorable to the plaintiff and construing all\\nreasonable inferences from the evidence in his favor. Anderson\\nv. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986); Lapre v. City of\\nChicago, 911 F.3d 424, 430 (7th Cir. 2018). Summary judgment\\nis appropriate when there are no genuine disputes of material\\nfact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.\\nFed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247–48; Lapre, 911 F.3d\\nat 430.\\n “A prison official’s ‘deliberate indifference’ to a substantial\\nrisk of serious harm to an inmate violates the Eighth Amend-\\nment.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 828 (1994). The Eighth\\nAmendment places both restraints and duties on prison\\nofficials, and one of those duties is to ensure that inmates\\nreceive adequate food. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 832. In order for a\\nprison official to be liable under the Eighth Amendment, two\\nrequirements must be met. First, the inmate must demonstrate\\nthat the deprivation suffered was, objectively, “sufficiently\\nserious.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834 (quoting Wilson v. Seiter, 501\\nU.S. 294, 298 (1991)). That is, the prison official’s act or omis-\\nsion must result in the denial of the minimal civilized measure\\n\\n2\\n Williams has therefore waived any challenge to the judgment as it relates\\nto the claim related to soy protein and the claim against Dr. Shah, and we\\nneed not address either claim again. Dr. Shah was not named as a defendant\\nin the brunch program count.\\n\\f6 No. 18-2439\\n\\nof life’s necessities. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834; Wilson, 501 U.S. at\\n298. We have recognized that, in some circumstances, the\\nwithholding of food may be sufficiently serious to satisfy the\\nobjective component of the Farmer test. Reed v. McBride, 178\\nF.3d 849, 853 (7th Cir. 1999). See also Jaros v. Illinois Dep’t of\\nCorrections, 684 F.3d 667, 670 (7th Cir. 2012) (adequate food is\\namong the minimal civilized measures of life’s necessities);\\nMays v. Springborn, 575 F.3d 643, 648 (7th Cir. 2009) (under the\\nEighth Amendment, a prisoner’s diet must provide adequate\\nnutrition). To assess whether the particular withholding of\\nfood meets Farmer’s objective prong, a “court must assess the\\namount and duration of the deprivation.” Reed, 178 F.3d at 853.\\nSee also Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724, 734 (7th Cir. 2001)\\n(noting that the withholding of food can in some circumstances\\nmeet the objective prong of Farmer depending on the amount\\nand duration of the deprivation, as well as the medical condi-\\ntion of the inmate).\\n Second, the inmate must demonstrate that the prison\\nofficial had a sufficiently culpable state of mind. In a case\\ninvolving prison conditions, that state of mind is deliberate\\nindifference to inmate health or safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834.\\nThe Supreme Court adopted a subjective test for defining\\ndeliberate indifference in such cases:\\n We hold instead that a prison official cannot be\\n found liable under the Eighth Amendment for\\n denying an inmate humane conditions of confine-\\n ment unless the official knows of and disregards an\\n excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official\\n must both be aware of facts from which the infer-\\n\\fNo. 18-2439 7\\n\\n ence could be drawn that a substantial risk of seri-\\n ous harm exists, and he must also draw the infer-\\n ence.\\nFarmer, 511 U.S. at 837. Thus, Williams must provide evidence\\nthat Bailey, Lashbrook and Baldwin knew that the brunch\\nprogram was nutritionally deficient, or that inmates were\\nbeing served nutritionally inadequate meals regardless of the\\nrequirements of the brunch program.3\\n We may affirm summary judgment on any basis we find in\\nthe record. Nature Conservancy v. Wilder Corp. of Delaware, 656\\nF.3d 646, 653 (7th Cir. 2011). Williams asserts both that the\\nbrunch program as designed failed to provide sufficient\\nnutrition, and that he was being served meals that did not meet\\nthe requirements of the program as designed.4 But the record\\n\\n\\n3\\n Throughout the remainder of this opinion, we use phrases such as\\n“nutritionally deficient” or “nutritionally inadequate” as shorthand for\\nmeals deficient enough to pose a substantial risk of serious harm, as\\ndetermined by the objective test of Farmer. For Williams’ claim that he was\\nnot receiving the meals described in the brunch program Master Menus, we\\nneed not decide here whether the meals that the prison served Williams met\\nFarmer’s objective standard because we instead decide that issue on Farmer’s\\nsubjective prong.\\n\\n4\\n Although it is not entirely clear that Williams contests the constitutional-\\nity of the brunch program as designed, for the sake of completeness, we\\naddress that claim. In the district court, Williams both attacked the plan as\\ndesigned and also asserted that he was “not seeking to prove Bailey is\\nunqualified to create a menu that is nutritionally balanced, but a question\\nexists as to what was actually fed to Williams.” He further stated that,\\nalthough Bailey may have designed a nutritional menu, the food served did\\n (continued...)\\n\\f8 No. 18-2439\\n\\nestablishes without contradiction that the program was\\nadequate as designed, which defeats his first theory of the case\\nunder the objective part of the Farmer test. And he also fails to\\npresent evidence that any of the defendants knew that he was\\nnot receiving adequate nutrition, dooming his other claim\\nunder the subjective prong of Farmer.\\n The only evidence in the record regarding the nutritional\\nsufficiency of the brunch program Master Menus comes from\\nBailey, a licensed dietician. Bailey attached the Master Menus\\nfor 2015 to her affidavit. She averred that the two-meal brunch\\nmenus supplied 2200 to 2400 calories per day, the same\\nnumber of calories provided in the regular three-meal menu\\nplans. She opined that the brunch plan that she designed\\nwould be nutritionally adequate for a person not in need of a\\nspecial diet for medical reasons. Williams does not assert that\\nhe required a special diet for medical reasons. Importantly,\\nWilliams supplied no evidence challenging the nutritional\\nvalue of the brunch program Master Menus as designed. At\\noral argument, counsel for the plaintiff candidly conceded that\\nhe was unaware of any evidence in the record that the Master\\nMenus themselves were nutritionally inadequate. Oral\\nArgument, at 4:43–4:52. In the face of Bailey’s affidavit and the\\n\\n\\n4\\n (...continued)\\nnot meet the requirements of the menu. R. 97-2, at 8. He also took Bailey to\\ntask for failing to implement procedures to ensure that the menus were\\nimplemented as designed. But he cites no evidence in the record supporting\\na claim that Bailey failed to ensure that the plan was followed, or even\\nevidence that it was her responsibility to do so. On the contrary, Bailey’s\\naffidavit states that it was the responsibility of Dietary Managers to\\nimplement her plan.\\n\\fNo. 18-2439 9\\n\\nmenu plans themselves, the record is devoid of any evidence\\nthat the planned meals were deficient. On this record, Williams\\nhas failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact\\nregarding a substantial risk of serious harm from the brunch\\nprogram as designed. That claim thus fails under Farmer’s\\nobjective standard because the record establishes without\\ndispute that the plan was formulated to provide adequate\\nnutrition.\\n Williams also asserts, however, that the prison did not\\nserve the planned meals required by the Master Menus, and\\nthat he received less food and fewer calories than Bailey\\nplanned for the brunch program. He averred that he “com-\\nmonly” did not receive eight ounces of protein or five servings\\nof fruits and vegetables, and he testified that he instead\\nreceived 1500 or 1600 calories per day. But he has failed to\\nproduce any evidence that the named defendants were aware\\nthat he was not receiving the amount of food or the types of\\nfood that Bailey’s Master Menus prescribed. Williams con-\\nceded that he never conveyed his complaints to Bailey. R. 83-1,\\nat 119. Because the Dietary Managers at the individual facilities\\nwere responsible for implementing the Master Menus that she\\ndesigned, Bailey had no way of knowing that prisoners at\\nPinckneyville allegedly were not receiving 2200 to 2400\\ncalories, including eight ounces of protein and five servings of\\nfruits and vegetables daily.\\n Williams asserts that Warden Lashbrook and Director\\nBaldwin were aware that prisoners at Pinckneyville were not\\nreceiving enough food, citing his deposition testimony that he\\n“continuously complained of migraines, restlessness and lack\\nof energy due to the inadequate number of calories he was\\n\\f10 No. 18-2439\\n\\neating on a daily basis.” Brief at 15. But those cited passages of\\nWilliams’ deposition reveal only that he complained to certain\\nnurses and to Dr. Shah about the brunch program, not to\\nWarden Lashbrook or Director Baldwin.5 He also cites his\\naffidavit in which he asserts that he commonly did not receive\\neight ounces of protein or five servings of vegetables per day,\\nbut he does not aver that he told the Warden or the Director\\nabout these deficiencies.\\n Neither the Warden nor the Director may be held liable\\nunless they had some personal involvement in the alleged\\nconstitutional deprivation. Consolino v. Towne, 872 F.3d 825, 832\\n(7th Cir. 2017); Matz v. Klotka, 769 F.3d 517, 528 (7th Cir. 2014).\\nPrison officials may satisfy the personal responsibility require-\\nment of section 1983 if the conduct causing the constitutional\\ndeprivation occurs at the official’s direction or with his or her\\nknowledge and consent. Gentry v. Duckworth, 65 F.3d 555, 561\\n(7th Cir. 1995). See also Doyle v. Camelot Care Centers, Inc., 305\\nF.3d 603, 614–15 (7th Cir. 2002) (to be held liable under section\\n1983, a supervisory official must have had personal involve-\\nment in the constitutional deprivation, essentially directing or\\n\\n\\n5\\n Williams does not cite or rely on the numerous grievances that he filed as\\nevidence that the defendants knew that inmates were being served a\\nnutritionally inadequate diet. The grievances, copies of which were\\npurportedly sent to the Warden and the Director, focused almost exclu-\\nsively on Williams’ objections to the soy content of the prison diet, a claim\\nthat he has waived on appeal. He also sometimes mentioned in the\\ngrievances that he believed he was not receiving adequate nutrition or\\ncalories, but because he has not cited or relied on those documents on\\nappeal, we will not consider them in determining whether the defendants\\nwere aware that he was being denied adequate nutrition.\\n\\fNo. 18-2439 11\\n\\nconsenting to the challenged conduct). But even if we assume\\nfor the sake of argument that the Warden and Director were\\ninvolved in enacting the brunch program (Williams offers no\\nevidence regarding who was responsible for the decision), we\\nhave already determined that there is no evidence that the\\nbrunch program as designed was deficient. Because the\\nWarden and Director did not know that the inmates were\\nbeing deprived of adequate nutrition and were not personally\\ninvolved in delivering the purportedly deficient meals, they\\nmay not be held liable under section 1983.\\n Finally, at oral argument, Williams cited the last paragraph\\nof his affidavit as evidence that the Warden was aware that the\\nprison provided inadequate nutrition and that the prescribed\\nmeal plan was not being followed. That passage states:\\n During my incarceration at Pinckneyville, I received\\n information from Warden Lashbrook who stated\\n that she believed the brunch program constituted a\\n violation of Eighth Amendment rights.\\nR. 97-4, at 2. In the district court, Williams cited this passage as\\nsupport for a claim that “in a conversation with Lashbrook,\\nWilliams learned Lashbrook believed the brunch program was\\ndiscontinued because of a ruling indicating it violated inmate’s\\nrights.” R. 97-2, at 18. Although Williams characterizes his\\naffidavit as evidence of a conversation with Lashbrook, the\\naffidavit itself is vague on that point. We have no context\\nexplaining how Williams “received information” regarding a\\nstatement from the Warden or when this statement occurred.\\nIn any case, even if we assume that Warden Lashbrook told\\nWilliams that the program was discontinued because of a\\n\\f12 No. 18-2439\\n\\nruling indicating that it violated prisoner’s rights, this state-\\nment is nothing more than a conveyance of a legal conclusion\\nmade by an unidentified source. At most, the statement\\ndemonstrates that the Warden learned after the termination of\\nthe program that some unnamed person considered it constitu-\\ntionally infirm. The Warden’s understanding of the reason for\\nthe termination of the brunch program tells us nothing\\nregarding whether she knew that the Dietary Manager or\\nprison kitchen staff were not complying with the brunch\\nprogram as designed but were instead serving nutritionally\\ninadequate meals while the program was in place.\\n In sum, the record establishes without dispute that the\\nbrunch program as designed was nutritionally adequate, and\\nso Williams fails on that claim to meet the objective component\\nof the Farmer test. And he also lacks evidence that any of the\\nnamed defendants were aware that subordinate prison staff\\nwere not serving the brunch Master Menus as designed but\\nwere instead providing inadequate amounts of food to the\\nprisoners. That lack of knowledge forecloses any claim against\\nthe defendants under the subjective part of the Farmer test. The\\njudgment of the district court is therefore\\n AFFIRMED.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4406123/\", \"author_raw\": \"Ilana Kara Diamond Rovner\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"BAUER"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"ROVNER"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"BRENNAN"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"BAUER\": \", Circuit\", \"ROVNER\": \", Circuit\", \"BRENNAN\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4628870/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":6,"string":"6"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Leonte Williams v. Vipin Shah\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-06-12\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\nNo. 18-2439\n\nLEONTE WILLIAMS,\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\n\n v.\n\n\nVIPIN SHAH, SUZANN BAILEY,\nJOHN BALDWIN, and JACQUELINE\nLASHBROOK,\n Defendants-Appellees.\n\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Southern District of Illinois.\n No. 3:15-cv-1278-SMY-RJD — Staci M. Yandle, Judge.\n\n\n\n ARGUED MARCH 26, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 12, 2019\n\n\n Before BAUER, ROVNER, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\n ROVNER, Circuit Judge. Leonte Williams, an inmate in the\ncustody of the Illinois Department of Corrections, sued a\nnumber of prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that\nthey violated his Eighth Amendment rights by providing\n\f2 No. 18-2439\n\ninadequate nutrition through a “brunch” program that served\nonly two meals a day. The district court granted summary\njudgment in favor of the defendants. Because the record\nestablishes without dispute that the brunch program was\nadequate as designed and also because Williams lacks evidence\nthat any of the defendants knew that he was allegedly not\nreceiving adequate nutrition, we affirm.\n I.\n During the relevant time period, Williams was incarcerated\nat Pinckneyville Correctional Center in southern Illinois.\nDuring four or five months of Williams’ stay at Pinckneyville,\nthe facility participated in a pilot “brunch” program designed\nby Suzann Bailey, a licensed dietician and the Food Service\nAdministrator for the Illinois Department of Corrections\n(“Department”). Prior to the brunch program, Illinois prisons\nused a regular meal plan that consisted of three meals per day,\nwith “Master Menus” formulated by Bailey to provide approx-\nimately 2200 to 2400 calories per day, including a minimum of\nsix ounces of protein per day. Dietary Managers at each\ncorrectional facility in Illinois were required to follow Bailey’s\nMaster Menus as closely as possible, making substitutions\nwhen necessary and replacing unavailable items with compa-\nrable foods.\n The brunch program provided two meals per day rather\nthan three, combining breakfast and lunch into a single meal.\nBailey designed a set of Master Menus for the brunch program\nthat were formulated to provide the same 2200 to 2400 calories\nper day as the three-meal plan, including at least eight ounces\nof protein (a two ounce increase over the regular three-meal\n\fNo. 18-2439 3\n\nplan), and at least five servings of fruits or vegetables per day.\nAs with the regular meal plan, Dietary Managers at the\ncorrectional centers were charged with implementing these\nMaster Menus as closely as possible, again with allowances for\nsubstitutions of like items when planned foods were not\navailable. In Bailey’s professional opinion, two meals contain-\ning 2200 to 2400 calories, including eight ounces of protein,\nwould provide adequate nutrition to individuals who were\notherwise healthy and not in need of specific dietary accommo-\ndations for medical conditions. For persons having special\ndietary needs, the Department allowed therapeutic dietary\ntrays as prescribed by physicians. At Pinckneyville, the brunch\nmeal was served at 10:30 or 11:00 a.m. and dinner was served\napproximately six hours later.\n Williams was subject to the pilot program from his arrival\nat the prison in July 2015 until the brunch program terminated\nin December 2015, apparently due to cost concerns. During\nthat time, Williams filed multiple grievances complaining that\nthe prison’s food was making him ill. He mainly objected to the\nuse of soy protein, asserting that it caused him stomach pain,\nconstipation, diarrhea, migraine headaches, and excessive gas.\nHe sometimes added in his grievances that he received only\n1600 calories per day or fewer than 2800 calories per day, and\nrequested that he be served breakfast.1 He also com\n\n1\n Williams asserts that the Department’s own regulations require that\nprisoners receive 2800 calories per day, citing Hall v. Sutton, 2012 WL\n407244 (S.D. Ill. Feb. 8, 2012). In that case, the inmate plaintiff alleged in his\ncomplaint that Department policy required a menu providing 2800 calories\nper day. The court assumed that number to be correct for the purposes of\n (continued...)\n\f4 No. 18-2439\n\nplained that nurses on medical call mistreated him, and that\nthe prison’s physician refused to prescribe a soy-free diet and\nwould not provide medical tests that Williams believed he\nneeded. The primary relief that he sought was the cessation of\nthe soy-based diet, thyroid testing and money damages, but he\nsometimes requested that he be served three meals per day and\nmore calories.\n His grievances were not resolved to his satisfaction and he\nfiled suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against Food Service Admin-\nistrator Suzann Bailey, Warden Jacqueline Lashbrook, Depart-\nment Director John Baldwin, and Dr. Vipin Shah, the prison’s\ndoctor. Williams asserted that: (1) Baldwin, Bailey and\nLashbrook violated his Eighth Amendment rights by serving\nhim soy-based meals that made him ill; (2) Shah violated his\nEighth Amendment rights through deliberate indifference to\nhis serious medical needs; and (3) Baldwin, Bailey and\nLashbrook violated his Eighth Amendment rights by institut-\ning a nutritionally inadequate brunch program. The district\ncourt granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants.\nWilliams appeals.\n\n\n\n1\n (...continued)\nassessing whether the complaint stated a claim upon which relief could be\ngranted. Current Department regulations provide that, “Food must be of\nsufficient nutritional value and provide a minimum of 1,800 to 2,000\ncalories for adults and 2,500 to 3,000 calories for juveniles per day.” 20 Ill.\nAdmin. Code 701.110 (a)(1). Williams does not assert that he is a juvenile.\nIn any case, section 1983 protects plaintiffs from constitutional violations,\nnot violations of state law or departmental regulations. Thompson v. City of\nChicago, 472 F.3d 444, 454 (7th Cir. 2006).\n\fNo. 18-2439 5\n\n II.\n On appeal, Williams challenges the judgment only as it\nrelates to the brunch program count against defendants\nBaldwin, Bailey and Lashbrook.2 We review the district court's\ngrant of summary judgment de novo, examining the record in\nthe light most favorable to the plaintiff and construing all\nreasonable inferences from the evidence in his favor. Anderson\nv. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986); Lapre v. City of\nChicago, 911 F.3d 424, 430 (7th Cir. 2018). Summary judgment\nis appropriate when there are no genuine disputes of material\nfact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.\nFed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247–48; Lapre, 911 F.3d\nat 430.\n “A prison official’s ‘deliberate indifference’ to a substantial\nrisk of serious harm to an inmate violates the Eighth Amend-\nment.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 828 (1994). The Eighth\nAmendment places both restraints and duties on prison\nofficials, and one of those duties is to ensure that inmates\nreceive adequate food. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 832. In order for a\nprison official to be liable under the Eighth Amendment, two\nrequirements must be met. First, the inmate must demonstrate\nthat the deprivation suffered was, objectively, “sufficiently\nserious.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834 (quoting Wilson v. Seiter, 501\nU.S. 294, 298 (1991)). That is, the prison official’s act or omis-\nsion must result in the denial of the minimal civilized measure\n\n2\n Williams has therefore waived any challenge to the judgment as it relates\nto the claim related to soy protein and the claim against Dr. Shah, and we\nneed not address either claim again. Dr. Shah was not named as a defendant\nin the brunch program count.\n\f6 No. 18-2439\n\nof life’s necessities. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834; Wilson, 501 U.S. at\n298. We have recognized that, in some circumstances, the\nwithholding of food may be sufficiently serious to satisfy the\nobjective component of the Farmer test. Reed v. McBride, 178\nF.3d 849, 853 (7th Cir. 1999). See also Jaros v. Illinois Dep’t of\nCorrections, 684 F.3d 667, 670 (7th Cir. 2012) (adequate food is\namong the minimal civilized measures of life’s necessities);\nMays v. Springborn, 575 F.3d 643, 648 (7th Cir. 2009) (under the\nEighth Amendment, a prisoner’s diet must provide adequate\nnutrition). To assess whether the particular withholding of\nfood meets Farmer’s objective prong, a “court must assess the\namount and duration of the deprivation.” Reed, 178 F.3d at 853.\nSee also Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724, 734 (7th Cir. 2001)\n(noting that the withholding of food can in some circumstances\nmeet the objective prong of Farmer depending on the amount\nand duration of the deprivation, as well as the medical condi-\ntion of the inmate).\n Second, the inmate must demonstrate that the prison\nofficial had a sufficiently culpable state of mind. In a case\ninvolving prison conditions, that state of mind is deliberate\nindifference to inmate health or safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834.\nThe Supreme Court adopted a subjective test for defining\ndeliberate indifference in such cases:\n We hold instead that a prison official cannot be\n found liable under the Eighth Amendment for\n denying an inmate humane conditions of confine-\n ment unless the official knows of and disregards an\n excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official\n must both be aware of facts from which the infer-\n\fNo. 18-2439 7\n\n ence could be drawn that a substantial risk of seri-\n ous harm exists, and he must also draw the infer-\n ence.\nFarmer, 511 U.S. at 837. Thus, Williams must provide evidence\nthat Bailey, Lashbrook and Baldwin knew that the brunch\nprogram was nutritionally deficient, or that inmates were\nbeing served nutritionally inadequate meals regardless of the\nrequirements of the brunch program.3\n We may affirm summary judgment on any basis we find in\nthe record. Nature Conservancy v. Wilder Corp. of Delaware, 656\nF.3d 646, 653 (7th Cir. 2011). Williams asserts both that the\nbrunch program as designed failed to provide sufficient\nnutrition, and that he was being served meals that did not meet\nthe requirements of the program as designed.4 But the record\n\n\n3\n Throughout the remainder of this opinion, we use phrases such as\n“nutritionally deficient” or “nutritionally inadequate” as shorthand for\nmeals deficient enough to pose a substantial risk of serious harm, as\ndetermined by the objective test of Farmer. For Williams’ claim that he was\nnot receiving the meals described in the brunch program Master Menus, we\nneed not decide here whether the meals that the prison served Williams met\nFarmer’s objective standard because we instead decide that issue on Farmer’s\nsubjective prong.\n\n4\n Although it is not entirely clear that Williams contests the constitutional-\nity of the brunch program as designed, for the sake of completeness, we\naddress that claim. In the district court, Williams both attacked the plan as\ndesigned and also asserted that he was “not seeking to prove Bailey is\nunqualified to create a menu that is nutritionally balanced, but a question\nexists as to what was actually fed to Williams.” He further stated that,\nalthough Bailey may have designed a nutritional menu, the food served did\n (continued...)\n\f8 No. 18-2439\n\nestablishes without contradiction that the program was\nadequate as designed, which defeats his first theory of the case\nunder the objective part of the Farmer test. And he also fails to\npresent evidence that any of the defendants knew that he was\nnot receiving adequate nutrition, dooming his other claim\nunder the subjective prong of Farmer.\n The only evidence in the record regarding the nutritional\nsufficiency of the brunch program Master Menus comes from\nBailey, a licensed dietician. Bailey attached the Master Menus\nfor 2015 to her affidavit. She averred that the two-meal brunch\nmenus supplied 2200 to 2400 calories per day, the same\nnumber of calories provided in the regular three-meal menu\nplans. She opined that the brunch plan that she designed\nwould be nutritionally adequate for a person not in need of a\nspecial diet for medical reasons. Williams does not assert that\nhe required a special diet for medical reasons. Importantly,\nWilliams supplied no evidence challenging the nutritional\nvalue of the brunch program Master Menus as designed. At\noral argument, counsel for the plaintiff candidly conceded that\nhe was unaware of any evidence in the record that the Master\nMenus themselves were nutritionally inadequate. Oral\nArgument, at 4:43–4:52. In the face of Bailey’s affidavit and the\n\n\n4\n (...continued)\nnot meet the requirements of the menu. R. 97-2, at 8. He also took Bailey to\ntask for failing to implement procedures to ensure that the menus were\nimplemented as designed. But he cites no evidence in the record supporting\na claim that Bailey failed to ensure that the plan was followed, or even\nevidence that it was her responsibility to do so. On the contrary, Bailey’s\naffidavit states that it was the responsibility of Dietary Managers to\nimplement her plan.\n\fNo. 18-2439 9\n\nmenu plans themselves, the record is devoid of any evidence\nthat the planned meals were deficient. On this record, Williams\nhas failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact\nregarding a substantial risk of serious harm from the brunch\nprogram as designed. That claim thus fails under Farmer’s\nobjective standard because the record establishes without\ndispute that the plan was formulated to provide adequate\nnutrition.\n Williams also asserts, however, that the prison did not\nserve the planned meals required by the Master Menus, and\nthat he received less food and fewer calories than Bailey\nplanned for the brunch program. He averred that he “com-\nmonly” did not receive eight ounces of protein or five servings\nof fruits and vegetables, and he testified that he instead\nreceived 1500 or 1600 calories per day. But he has failed to\nproduce any evidence that the named defendants were aware\nthat he was not receiving the amount of food or the types of\nfood that Bailey’s Master Menus prescribed. Williams con-\nceded that he never conveyed his complaints to Bailey. R. 83-1,\nat 119. Because the Dietary Managers at the individual facilities\nwere responsible for implementing the Master Menus that she\ndesigned, Bailey had no way of knowing that prisoners at\nPinckneyville allegedly were not receiving 2200 to 2400\ncalories, including eight ounces of protein and five servings of\nfruits and vegetables daily.\n Williams asserts that Warden Lashbrook and Director\nBaldwin were aware that prisoners at Pinckneyville were not\nreceiving enough food, citing his deposition testimony that he\n“continuously complained of migraines, restlessness and lack\nof energy due to the inadequate number of calories he was\n\f10 No. 18-2439\n\neating on a daily basis.” Brief at 15. But those cited passages of\nWilliams’ deposition reveal only that he complained to certain\nnurses and to Dr. Shah about the brunch program, not to\nWarden Lashbrook or Director Baldwin.5 He also cites his\naffidavit in which he asserts that he commonly did not receive\neight ounces of protein or five servings of vegetables per day,\nbut he does not aver that he told the Warden or the Director\nabout these deficiencies.\n Neither the Warden nor the Director may be held liable\nunless they had some personal involvement in the alleged\nconstitutional deprivation. Consolino v. Towne, 872 F.3d 825, 832\n(7th Cir. 2017); Matz v. Klotka, 769 F.3d 517, 528 (7th Cir. 2014).\nPrison officials may satisfy the personal responsibility require-\nment of section 1983 if the conduct causing the constitutional\ndeprivation occurs at the official’s direction or with his or her\nknowledge and consent. Gentry v. Duckworth, 65 F.3d 555, 561\n(7th Cir. 1995). See also Doyle v. Camelot Care Centers, Inc., 305\nF.3d 603, 614–15 (7th Cir. 2002) (to be held liable under section\n1983, a supervisory official must have had personal involve-\nment in the constitutional deprivation, essentially directing or\n\n\n5\n Williams does not cite or rely on the numerous grievances that he filed as\nevidence that the defendants knew that inmates were being served a\nnutritionally inadequate diet. The grievances, copies of which were\npurportedly sent to the Warden and the Director, focused almost exclu-\nsively on Williams’ objections to the soy content of the prison diet, a claim\nthat he has waived on appeal. He also sometimes mentioned in the\ngrievances that he believed he was not receiving adequate nutrition or\ncalories, but because he has not cited or relied on those documents on\nappeal, we will not consider them in determining whether the defendants\nwere aware that he was being denied adequate nutrition.\n\fNo. 18-2439 11\n\nconsenting to the challenged conduct). But even if we assume\nfor the sake of argument that the Warden and Director were\ninvolved in enacting the brunch program (Williams offers no\nevidence regarding who was responsible for the decision), we\nhave already determined that there is no evidence that the\nbrunch program as designed was deficient. Because the\nWarden and Director did not know that the inmates were\nbeing deprived of adequate nutrition and were not personally\ninvolved in delivering the purportedly deficient meals, they\nmay not be held liable under section 1983.\n Finally, at oral argument, Williams cited the last paragraph\nof his affidavit as evidence that the Warden was aware that the\nprison provided inadequate nutrition and that the prescribed\nmeal plan was not being followed. That passage states:\n During my incarceration at Pinckneyville, I received\n information from Warden Lashbrook who stated\n that she believed the brunch program constituted a\n violation of Eighth Amendment rights.\nR. 97-4, at 2. In the district court, Williams cited this passage as\nsupport for a claim that “in a conversation with Lashbrook,\nWilliams learned Lashbrook believed the brunch program was\ndiscontinued because of a ruling indicating it violated inmate’s\nrights.” R. 97-2, at 18. Although Williams characterizes his\naffidavit as evidence of a conversation with Lashbrook, the\naffidavit itself is vague on that point. We have no context\nexplaining how Williams “received information” regarding a\nstatement from the Warden or when this statement occurred.\nIn any case, even if we assume that Warden Lashbrook told\nWilliams that the program was discontinued because of a\n\f12 No. 18-2439\n\nruling indicating that it violated prisoner’s rights, this state-\nment is nothing more than a conveyance of a legal conclusion\nmade by an unidentified source. At most, the statement\ndemonstrates that the Warden learned after the termination of\nthe program that some unnamed person considered it constitu-\ntionally infirm. The Warden’s understanding of the reason for\nthe termination of the brunch program tells us nothing\nregarding whether she knew that the Dietary Manager or\nprison kitchen staff were not complying with the brunch\nprogram as designed but were instead serving nutritionally\ninadequate meals while the program was in place.\n In sum, the record establishes without dispute that the\nbrunch program as designed was nutritionally adequate, and\nso Williams fails on that claim to meet the objective component\nof the Farmer test. And he also lacks evidence that any of the\nnamed defendants were aware that subordinate prison staff\nwere not serving the brunch Master Menus as designed but\nwere instead providing inadequate amounts of food to the\nprisoners. That lack of knowledge forecloses any claim against\nthe defendants under the subjective part of the Farmer test. The\njudgment of the district court is therefore\n AFFIRMED.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Leonte Williams v. Vipin Shah\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-06-12\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\nNo. 18-2439\\n\\nLEONTE WILLIAMS,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n\\n v.\\n\\n\\nVIPIN SHAH, SUZANN BAILEY,\\nJOHN BALDWIN, and JACQUELINE\\nLASHBROOK,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Southern District of Illinois.\\n No. 3:15-cv-1278-SMY-RJD — Staci M. Yandle, Judge.\\n\\n\\n\\n ARGUED MARCH 26, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 12, 2019\\n\\n\\n Before BAUER, ROVNER, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\\n ROVNER, Circuit Judge. Leonte Williams, an inmate in the\\ncustody of the Illinois Department of Corrections, sued a\\nnumber of prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that\\nthey violated his Eighth Amendment rights by providing\\n\\f2 No. 18-2439\\n\\ninadequate nutrition through a “brunch” program that served\\nonly two meals a day. The district court granted summary\\njudgment in favor of the defendants. Because the record\\nestablishes without dispute that the brunch program was\\nadequate as designed and also because Williams lacks evidence\\nthat any of the defendants knew that he was allegedly not\\nreceiving adequate nutrition, we affirm.\\n I.\\n During the relevant time period, Williams was incarcerated\\nat Pinckneyville Correctional Center in southern Illinois.\\nDuring four or five months of Williams’ stay at Pinckneyville,\\nthe facility participated in a pilot “brunch” program designed\\nby Suzann Bailey, a licensed dietician and the Food Service\\nAdministrator for the Illinois Department of Corrections\\n(“Department”). Prior to the brunch program, Illinois prisons\\nused a regular meal plan that consisted of three meals per day,\\nwith “Master Menus” formulated by Bailey to provide approx-\\nimately 2200 to 2400 calories per day, including a minimum of\\nsix ounces of protein per day. Dietary Managers at each\\ncorrectional facility in Illinois were required to follow Bailey’s\\nMaster Menus as closely as possible, making substitutions\\nwhen necessary and replacing unavailable items with compa-\\nrable foods.\\n The brunch program provided two meals per day rather\\nthan three, combining breakfast and lunch into a single meal.\\nBailey designed a set of Master Menus for the brunch program\\nthat were formulated to provide the same 2200 to 2400 calories\\nper day as the three-meal plan, including at least eight ounces\\nof protein (a two ounce increase over the regular three-meal\\n\\fNo. 18-2439 3\\n\\nplan), and at least five servings of fruits or vegetables per day.\\nAs with the regular meal plan, Dietary Managers at the\\ncorrectional centers were charged with implementing these\\nMaster Menus as closely as possible, again with allowances for\\nsubstitutions of like items when planned foods were not\\navailable. In Bailey’s professional opinion, two meals contain-\\ning 2200 to 2400 calories, including eight ounces of protein,\\nwould provide adequate nutrition to individuals who were\\notherwise healthy and not in need of specific dietary accommo-\\ndations for medical conditions. For persons having special\\ndietary needs, the Department allowed therapeutic dietary\\ntrays as prescribed by physicians. At Pinckneyville, the brunch\\nmeal was served at 10:30 or 11:00 a.m. and dinner was served\\napproximately six hours later.\\n Williams was subject to the pilot program from his arrival\\nat the prison in July 2015 until the brunch program terminated\\nin December 2015, apparently due to cost concerns. During\\nthat time, Williams filed multiple grievances complaining that\\nthe prison’s food was making him ill. He mainly objected to the\\nuse of soy protein, asserting that it caused him stomach pain,\\nconstipation, diarrhea, migraine headaches, and excessive gas.\\nHe sometimes added in his grievances that he received only\\n1600 calories per day or fewer than 2800 calories per day, and\\nrequested that he be served breakfast.1 He also com\\n\\n1\\n Williams asserts that the Department’s own regulations require that\\nprisoners receive 2800 calories per day, citing Hall v. Sutton, 2012 WL\\n407244 (S.D. Ill. Feb. 8, 2012). In that case, the inmate plaintiff alleged in his\\ncomplaint that Department policy required a menu providing 2800 calories\\nper day. The court assumed that number to be correct for the purposes of\\n (continued...)\\n\\f4 No. 18-2439\\n\\nplained that nurses on medical call mistreated him, and that\\nthe prison’s physician refused to prescribe a soy-free diet and\\nwould not provide medical tests that Williams believed he\\nneeded. The primary relief that he sought was the cessation of\\nthe soy-based diet, thyroid testing and money damages, but he\\nsometimes requested that he be served three meals per day and\\nmore calories.\\n His grievances were not resolved to his satisfaction and he\\nfiled suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against Food Service Admin-\\nistrator Suzann Bailey, Warden Jacqueline Lashbrook, Depart-\\nment Director John Baldwin, and Dr. Vipin Shah, the prison’s\\ndoctor. Williams asserted that: (1) Baldwin, Bailey and\\nLashbrook violated his Eighth Amendment rights by serving\\nhim soy-based meals that made him ill; (2) Shah violated his\\nEighth Amendment rights through deliberate indifference to\\nhis serious medical needs; and (3) Baldwin, Bailey and\\nLashbrook violated his Eighth Amendment rights by institut-\\ning a nutritionally inadequate brunch program. The district\\ncourt granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants.\\nWilliams appeals.\\n\\n\\n\\n1\\n (...continued)\\nassessing whether the complaint stated a claim upon which relief could be\\ngranted. Current Department regulations provide that, “Food must be of\\nsufficient nutritional value and provide a minimum of 1,800 to 2,000\\ncalories for adults and 2,500 to 3,000 calories for juveniles per day.” 20 Ill.\\nAdmin. Code 701.110 (a)(1). Williams does not assert that he is a juvenile.\\nIn any case, section 1983 protects plaintiffs from constitutional violations,\\nnot violations of state law or departmental regulations. Thompson v. City of\\nChicago, 472 F.3d 444, 454 (7th Cir. 2006).\\n\\fNo. 18-2439 5\\n\\n II.\\n On appeal, Williams challenges the judgment only as it\\nrelates to the brunch program count against defendants\\nBaldwin, Bailey and Lashbrook.2 We review the district court's\\ngrant of summary judgment de novo, examining the record in\\nthe light most favorable to the plaintiff and construing all\\nreasonable inferences from the evidence in his favor. Anderson\\nv. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986); Lapre v. City of\\nChicago, 911 F.3d 424, 430 (7th Cir. 2018). Summary judgment\\nis appropriate when there are no genuine disputes of material\\nfact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.\\nFed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247–48; Lapre, 911 F.3d\\nat 430.\\n “A prison official’s ‘deliberate indifference’ to a substantial\\nrisk of serious harm to an inmate violates the Eighth Amend-\\nment.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 828 (1994). The Eighth\\nAmendment places both restraints and duties on prison\\nofficials, and one of those duties is to ensure that inmates\\nreceive adequate food. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 832. In order for a\\nprison official to be liable under the Eighth Amendment, two\\nrequirements must be met. First, the inmate must demonstrate\\nthat the deprivation suffered was, objectively, “sufficiently\\nserious.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834 (quoting Wilson v. Seiter, 501\\nU.S. 294, 298 (1991)). That is, the prison official’s act or omis-\\nsion must result in the denial of the minimal civilized measure\\n\\n2\\n Williams has therefore waived any challenge to the judgment as it relates\\nto the claim related to soy protein and the claim against Dr. Shah, and we\\nneed not address either claim again. Dr. Shah was not named as a defendant\\nin the brunch program count.\\n\\f6 No. 18-2439\\n\\nof life’s necessities. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834; Wilson, 501 U.S. at\\n298. We have recognized that, in some circumstances, the\\nwithholding of food may be sufficiently serious to satisfy the\\nobjective component of the Farmer test. Reed v. McBride, 178\\nF.3d 849, 853 (7th Cir. 1999). See also Jaros v. Illinois Dep’t of\\nCorrections, 684 F.3d 667, 670 (7th Cir. 2012) (adequate food is\\namong the minimal civilized measures of life’s necessities);\\nMays v. Springborn, 575 F.3d 643, 648 (7th Cir. 2009) (under the\\nEighth Amendment, a prisoner’s diet must provide adequate\\nnutrition). To assess whether the particular withholding of\\nfood meets Farmer’s objective prong, a “court must assess the\\namount and duration of the deprivation.” Reed, 178 F.3d at 853.\\nSee also Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724, 734 (7th Cir. 2001)\\n(noting that the withholding of food can in some circumstances\\nmeet the objective prong of Farmer depending on the amount\\nand duration of the deprivation, as well as the medical condi-\\ntion of the inmate).\\n Second, the inmate must demonstrate that the prison\\nofficial had a sufficiently culpable state of mind. In a case\\ninvolving prison conditions, that state of mind is deliberate\\nindifference to inmate health or safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834.\\nThe Supreme Court adopted a subjective test for defining\\ndeliberate indifference in such cases:\\n We hold instead that a prison official cannot be\\n found liable under the Eighth Amendment for\\n denying an inmate humane conditions of confine-\\n ment unless the official knows of and disregards an\\n excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official\\n must both be aware of facts from which the infer-\\n\\fNo. 18-2439 7\\n\\n ence could be drawn that a substantial risk of seri-\\n ous harm exists, and he must also draw the infer-\\n ence.\\nFarmer, 511 U.S. at 837. Thus, Williams must provide evidence\\nthat Bailey, Lashbrook and Baldwin knew that the brunch\\nprogram was nutritionally deficient, or that inmates were\\nbeing served nutritionally inadequate meals regardless of the\\nrequirements of the brunch program.3\\n We may affirm summary judgment on any basis we find in\\nthe record. Nature Conservancy v. Wilder Corp. of Delaware, 656\\nF.3d 646, 653 (7th Cir. 2011). Williams asserts both that the\\nbrunch program as designed failed to provide sufficient\\nnutrition, and that he was being served meals that did not meet\\nthe requirements of the program as designed.4 But the record\\n\\n\\n3\\n Throughout the remainder of this opinion, we use phrases such as\\n“nutritionally deficient” or “nutritionally inadequate” as shorthand for\\nmeals deficient enough to pose a substantial risk of serious harm, as\\ndetermined by the objective test of Farmer. For Williams’ claim that he was\\nnot receiving the meals described in the brunch program Master Menus, we\\nneed not decide here whether the meals that the prison served Williams met\\nFarmer’s objective standard because we instead decide that issue on Farmer’s\\nsubjective prong.\\n\\n4\\n Although it is not entirely clear that Williams contests the constitutional-\\nity of the brunch program as designed, for the sake of completeness, we\\naddress that claim. In the district court, Williams both attacked the plan as\\ndesigned and also asserted that he was “not seeking to prove Bailey is\\nunqualified to create a menu that is nutritionally balanced, but a question\\nexists as to what was actually fed to Williams.” He further stated that,\\nalthough Bailey may have designed a nutritional menu, the food served did\\n (continued...)\\n\\f8 No. 18-2439\\n\\nestablishes without contradiction that the program was\\nadequate as designed, which defeats his first theory of the case\\nunder the objective part of the Farmer test. And he also fails to\\npresent evidence that any of the defendants knew that he was\\nnot receiving adequate nutrition, dooming his other claim\\nunder the subjective prong of Farmer.\\n The only evidence in the record regarding the nutritional\\nsufficiency of the brunch program Master Menus comes from\\nBailey, a licensed dietician. Bailey attached the Master Menus\\nfor 2015 to her affidavit. She averred that the two-meal brunch\\nmenus supplied 2200 to 2400 calories per day, the same\\nnumber of calories provided in the regular three-meal menu\\nplans. She opined that the brunch plan that she designed\\nwould be nutritionally adequate for a person not in need of a\\nspecial diet for medical reasons. Williams does not assert that\\nhe required a special diet for medical reasons. Importantly,\\nWilliams supplied no evidence challenging the nutritional\\nvalue of the brunch program Master Menus as designed. At\\noral argument, counsel for the plaintiff candidly conceded that\\nhe was unaware of any evidence in the record that the Master\\nMenus themselves were nutritionally inadequate. Oral\\nArgument, at 4:43–4:52. In the face of Bailey’s affidavit and the\\n\\n\\n4\\n (...continued)\\nnot meet the requirements of the menu. R. 97-2, at 8. He also took Bailey to\\ntask for failing to implement procedures to ensure that the menus were\\nimplemented as designed. But he cites no evidence in the record supporting\\na claim that Bailey failed to ensure that the plan was followed, or even\\nevidence that it was her responsibility to do so. On the contrary, Bailey’s\\naffidavit states that it was the responsibility of Dietary Managers to\\nimplement her plan.\\n\\fNo. 18-2439 9\\n\\nmenu plans themselves, the record is devoid of any evidence\\nthat the planned meals were deficient. On this record, Williams\\nhas failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact\\nregarding a substantial risk of serious harm from the brunch\\nprogram as designed. That claim thus fails under Farmer’s\\nobjective standard because the record establishes without\\ndispute that the plan was formulated to provide adequate\\nnutrition.\\n Williams also asserts, however, that the prison did not\\nserve the planned meals required by the Master Menus, and\\nthat he received less food and fewer calories than Bailey\\nplanned for the brunch program. He averred that he “com-\\nmonly” did not receive eight ounces of protein or five servings\\nof fruits and vegetables, and he testified that he instead\\nreceived 1500 or 1600 calories per day. But he has failed to\\nproduce any evidence that the named defendants were aware\\nthat he was not receiving the amount of food or the types of\\nfood that Bailey’s Master Menus prescribed. Williams con-\\nceded that he never conveyed his complaints to Bailey. R. 83-1,\\nat 119. Because the Dietary Managers at the individual facilities\\nwere responsible for implementing the Master Menus that she\\ndesigned, Bailey had no way of knowing that prisoners at\\nPinckneyville allegedly were not receiving 2200 to 2400\\ncalories, including eight ounces of protein and five servings of\\nfruits and vegetables daily.\\n Williams asserts that Warden Lashbrook and Director\\nBaldwin were aware that prisoners at Pinckneyville were not\\nreceiving enough food, citing his deposition testimony that he\\n“continuously complained of migraines, restlessness and lack\\nof energy due to the inadequate number of calories he was\\n\\f10 No. 18-2439\\n\\neating on a daily basis.” Brief at 15. But those cited passages of\\nWilliams’ deposition reveal only that he complained to certain\\nnurses and to Dr. Shah about the brunch program, not to\\nWarden Lashbrook or Director Baldwin.5 He also cites his\\naffidavit in which he asserts that he commonly did not receive\\neight ounces of protein or five servings of vegetables per day,\\nbut he does not aver that he told the Warden or the Director\\nabout these deficiencies.\\n Neither the Warden nor the Director may be held liable\\nunless they had some personal involvement in the alleged\\nconstitutional deprivation. Consolino v. Towne, 872 F.3d 825, 832\\n(7th Cir. 2017); Matz v. Klotka, 769 F.3d 517, 528 (7th Cir. 2014).\\nPrison officials may satisfy the personal responsibility require-\\nment of section 1983 if the conduct causing the constitutional\\ndeprivation occurs at the official’s direction or with his or her\\nknowledge and consent. Gentry v. Duckworth, 65 F.3d 555, 561\\n(7th Cir. 1995). See also Doyle v. Camelot Care Centers, Inc., 305\\nF.3d 603, 614–15 (7th Cir. 2002) (to be held liable under section\\n1983, a supervisory official must have had personal involve-\\nment in the constitutional deprivation, essentially directing or\\n\\n\\n5\\n Williams does not cite or rely on the numerous grievances that he filed as\\nevidence that the defendants knew that inmates were being served a\\nnutritionally inadequate diet. The grievances, copies of which were\\npurportedly sent to the Warden and the Director, focused almost exclu-\\nsively on Williams’ objections to the soy content of the prison diet, a claim\\nthat he has waived on appeal. He also sometimes mentioned in the\\ngrievances that he believed he was not receiving adequate nutrition or\\ncalories, but because he has not cited or relied on those documents on\\nappeal, we will not consider them in determining whether the defendants\\nwere aware that he was being denied adequate nutrition.\\n\\fNo. 18-2439 11\\n\\nconsenting to the challenged conduct). But even if we assume\\nfor the sake of argument that the Warden and Director were\\ninvolved in enacting the brunch program (Williams offers no\\nevidence regarding who was responsible for the decision), we\\nhave already determined that there is no evidence that the\\nbrunch program as designed was deficient. Because the\\nWarden and Director did not know that the inmates were\\nbeing deprived of adequate nutrition and were not personally\\ninvolved in delivering the purportedly deficient meals, they\\nmay not be held liable under section 1983.\\n Finally, at oral argument, Williams cited the last paragraph\\nof his affidavit as evidence that the Warden was aware that the\\nprison provided inadequate nutrition and that the prescribed\\nmeal plan was not being followed. That passage states:\\n During my incarceration at Pinckneyville, I received\\n information from Warden Lashbrook who stated\\n that she believed the brunch program constituted a\\n violation of Eighth Amendment rights.\\nR. 97-4, at 2. In the district court, Williams cited this passage as\\nsupport for a claim that “in a conversation with Lashbrook,\\nWilliams learned Lashbrook believed the brunch program was\\ndiscontinued because of a ruling indicating it violated inmate’s\\nrights.” R. 97-2, at 18. Although Williams characterizes his\\naffidavit as evidence of a conversation with Lashbrook, the\\naffidavit itself is vague on that point. We have no context\\nexplaining how Williams “received information” regarding a\\nstatement from the Warden or when this statement occurred.\\nIn any case, even if we assume that Warden Lashbrook told\\nWilliams that the program was discontinued because of a\\n\\f12 No. 18-2439\\n\\nruling indicating that it violated prisoner’s rights, this state-\\nment is nothing more than a conveyance of a legal conclusion\\nmade by an unidentified source. At most, the statement\\ndemonstrates that the Warden learned after the termination of\\nthe program that some unnamed person considered it constitu-\\ntionally infirm. The Warden’s understanding of the reason for\\nthe termination of the brunch program tells us nothing\\nregarding whether she knew that the Dietary Manager or\\nprison kitchen staff were not complying with the brunch\\nprogram as designed but were instead serving nutritionally\\ninadequate meals while the program was in place.\\n In sum, the record establishes without dispute that the\\nbrunch program as designed was nutritionally adequate, and\\nso Williams fails on that claim to meet the objective component\\nof the Farmer test. And he also lacks evidence that any of the\\nnamed defendants were aware that subordinate prison staff\\nwere not serving the brunch Master Menus as designed but\\nwere instead providing inadequate amounts of food to the\\nprisoners. That lack of knowledge forecloses any claim against\\nthe defendants under the subjective part of the Farmer test. The\\njudgment of the district court is therefore\\n AFFIRMED.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2571,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4628871,"string":"4,628,871"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"BODUM USA, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. a TOP NEW CASTING INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellant."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Bodum USA, Incorporated v. A Top New Casting Incorporated"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-06-12"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-3020"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Flaum, Manion, Barrett\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Joel Martin Flaum\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18‐3020\\nBODUM USA, INCORPORATED,\\n Plaintiff‐Appellee,\\n v.\\n\\nA TOP NEW CASTING INCORPORATED,\\n Defendant‐Appellant.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 16‐cv‐02916 — Matthew F. Kennelly, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED MAY 30, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 12, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before FLAUM, MANION, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.\\n FLAUM, Circuit Judge. Bodum USA, Inc. (“Bodum”) pro‐\\nduces and sells what design magazines and art museums\\nhave recognized as an iconically designed houseware prod‐\\nuct—the Chambord French press coffeemaker. Bodum sued\\nA Top New Casting, Inc. (“A Top”) for selling a French press\\nthat Bodum claimed infringes on its unregistered trade dress\\nin the Chambord. After a five‐day trial, a jury returned a ver‐\\n\\f2 No. 18‐3020\\n\\ndict in favor of Bodum, finding that A Top had willfully in‐\\nfringed on Bodum’s trade dress in the Chambord and award‐\\ning Bodum $2 million in damages. The district court denied\\nA Top’s post‐trial motion for judgment as a matter of law, in\\nwhich A Top argued that Bodum failed to prove the Cham‐\\nbord design was nonfunctional. A Top also moved for a new\\ntrial because the court excluded evidence of various utility pa‐\\ntents covering French press coffeemakers; the district court\\ndenied this motion as well. We affirm.\\n I. Background\\n Plaintiff‐appellee Bodum has been selling French press\\ncoffeemakers since the 1970s. A French press is a nonelectric\\ncoffeemaker consisting of a cylindrical carafe and a plunger\\nattached to a filter screen. The user adds boiling water to cof‐\\nfee grounds in the carafe and, after the grounds have steeped,\\npresses the filter down slowly through the carafe to separate\\nthe used grounds from the brewed coffee.\\n Bodum began distributing the Chambord, its flagship\\nFrench press, in 1983. The Chambord’s design originated in\\nFrance in the 1930s and is based on the towers of the Cham‐\\nbord Chateau, a castle in France’s Loire Valley. Its features in‐\\nclude a metal cage with a band around the top of the carafe,\\nmetal pillars ending in four curved feet, a C‐shaped handle,\\nand a domed lid topped with a spherical knob. Bodum’s\\nChambord French press is pictured below:\\n\\fNo. 18‐3020 3\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Bodum acquired exclusive rights to distribute the Cham‐\\nbord in 1991 and has spent millions of dollars promoting it in\\nprint and television advertisements and at trade shows\\nworldwide. Bodum sells the Chambord in department stores,\\nat Starbucks coffee shops, and online, including through Am‐\\nazon. The Chambord design has been recognized as classic by\\nsuch institutions as Phaidon Design Classics and the Museum\\nof Modern Art. Bodum actively polices whatever it believes\\nto be infringement of this design; it has sent dozens of cease‐\\nand‐desist letters over the past twenty‐five years and has filed\\nlawsuits against alleged infringers when they did not stop\\nselling their products in response to Bodum’s requests.\\n In 2014, defendant‐appellant A Top began selling a com‐\\npeting French press coffeemaker called the SterlingPro exclu‐\\nsively through Amazon. The SterlingPro is similar in appear‐\\nance to the Chambord, with the same metal cage, metal pillars\\nending in curved feet, C‐shaped handle, and domed lid\\n\\f4 No. 18‐3020\\n\\ntopped with a spherical knob. The two coffeemakers are pic‐\\ntured side‐by‐side below, with the Chambord on the left and\\nthe SterlingPro on the right:\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Bodum filed a complaint against A Top in the Northern\\nDistrict of Illinois on March 7, 2016, bringing claims for trade\\ndress infringement under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.\\n§ 1125(a); common law unfair competition; and violation of\\nthe Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 815 Ill.\\nComp. Stat. § 510/1 et seq. According to Bodum’s complaint,\\nA Top intentionally adopted the overall appearance of the\\nChambord for its SterlingPro product, infringing on its unreg‐\\nistered trade dress in the design. A Top moved for summary\\njudgment on Bodum’s claims twice, but the district court de‐\\nnied these motions and the case proceeded to a jury trial on\\nMarch 28, 2018.\\n The jury returned a verdict in Bodum’s favor, finding that\\nA Top willfully infringed on Bodum’s Chambord trade dress\\nand awarding Bodum $2 million in damages. A Top timely\\nmoved for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of\\n\\fNo. 18‐3020 5\\n\\nCivil Procedure 50 and for a new trial under Rule 59. As rele‐\\nvant here, A Top claimed that it was entitled to judgment as a\\nmatter of law because Bodum had failed to prove its Cham‐\\nbord trade dress elements were nonfunctional. And A Top\\nsaid it was at least entitled to a new trial because the district\\ncourt erred in excluding evidence under Rule 403 of utility\\npatents that, it said, disclosed the Chambord’s trade dress fea‐\\ntures (demonstrating the functionality of those features). The\\ndistrict court denied both motions on June 6, 2018.\\n On August 21, 2018, the district court granted Bodum’s\\nmotion for enhanced damages, awarding prejudgment inter‐\\nest and doubling the damages award to $4 million, and it de‐\\nnied Bodum’s motion for attorney’s fees. Further, the court\\ngranted Bodum’s request for a permanent injunction to pre‐\\nvent A Top from continuing to sell its infringing SterlingPro\\nproducts. The district court entered final judgment on August\\n23, and A Top timely appealed.\\n II. Discussion\\n A Top pursues two arguments on appeal. First, A Top says\\nthat it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because\\nBodum did not meet its burden of demonstrating that the el‐\\nements of the claimed Chambord trade dress were nonfunc‐\\ntional (as required for it to be enforceable under the Lanham\\nAct). Second, A Top claims that it is entitled to a new trial be‐\\ncause the district court improperly excluded several utility\\npatents from evidence under Rule 403.\\n A. Functionality of the Chambord Trade Dress\\n We review de novo the denial of a Rule 50 motion for judg‐\\nment as a matter of law. Thorne v. Member Select Ins. Co., 882\\nF.3d 642, 644 (7th Cir. 2018). “Because a jury has rendered a\\n\\f6 No. 18‐3020\\n\\nverdict, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to\\nthat verdict.” Matthews v. Wis. Energy Corp., 642 F.3d 565, 567\\n(7th Cir. 2011). In our review, we do not make credibility de‐\\nterminations or reweigh the evidence; we need only deter‐\\nmine that there is more than “a mere scintilla of evidence” to\\nsupport the verdict. May v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 716 F.3d 963,\\n971 (7th Cir. 2013) (quoting Hossack v. Floor Covering Assoc. of\\nJoliet, Inc., 492 F.3d 853, 859 (7th Cir. 2007)). “In other words,\\nour job is to decide whether a highly charitable assessment of\\nthe evidence supports the jury’s verdict or if, instead, the jury\\nwas irrational to reach its conclusion.” Id.\\n The Lanham Act permits a civil action against any person\\nwho uses “any word, term, name, symbol, or device” “in con‐\\nnection with any goods or services” in a manner which “is\\nlikely to cause confusion” as to the source of those goods or\\nservices. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A). The Act’s protection ex‐\\ntends to a product’s trade dress, which includes a product de‐\\nsign that is so distinctive it identifies the product’s source. Ar‐\\nlington Specialties, Inc. v. Urban Aid, Inc., 847 F.3d 415, 418 (7th\\nCir. 2017); see also TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Mktg. Displays, Inc.,\\n532 U.S. 23, 28 (2001) (“The design or packaging of a product\\nmay acquire a distinctiveness which serves to identify the\\nproduct with its manufacturer or source; and a design or\\npackage which acquires this secondary meaning … is a trade\\ndress[.]”). As with any other trademark, infringement of a\\nproduct’s trade dress is actionable under the Act. Arlington\\nSpecialties, 847 F.3d at 418.\\n At trial, Bodum was required to prove a number of ele‐\\nments for the jury to find trade dress infringement—that it\\nowns a valid trade dress in the Chambord design, that the\\ntrade dress is not functional, and that A Top’s SterlingPro was\\n\\fNo. 18‐3020 7\\n\\nlikely to cause consumer confusion as to its source. See id. On\\nappeal, A Top does not dispute that the SterlingPro copies the\\nChambord. Instead, A Top only challenges Bodum’s proof on\\nthe functionality of its claimed trade dress.1\\n Trademark protection for trade dress, unlike patent and\\ncopyright protection, has no time limit; the Act therefore does\\nnot protect features that are necessary for the use of a product,\\nso as to prevent one competitor from maintaining a “perpet‐\\nual and exclusive right to a useful product feature.” Id. (citing\\nQualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co., 514 U.S. 159, 165 (1995)). The\\nSupreme Court has explained that “‘a product feature is func‐\\ntional,’ and cannot serve as a trademark, ‘if it is essential to\\nthe use or purpose of the article or if it affects the cost or qual‐\\nity of the article.’” Qualitex, 514 U.S. at 165 (quoting Inwood\\nLabs., Inc. v. Ives Labs., Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 850 n.10 (1982)). Even\\nif a claimed trade dress does not satisfy this first test, “it can\\nstill be functional if it is a ‘competitive necessity,’ that is, if its\\nexclusive use ‘would put competitors at a significant non‐rep‐\\nutation‐related disadvantage.’” Arlington Specialties, 847 F.3d\\nat 419 (quoting TrafFix Devices, 532 U.S. at 32–33)); see also Spe‐\\ncialized Seating, Inc. v. Greenwich Indus., LP, 616 F.3d 722, 727\\n(7th Cir. 2010) (a design is functional where a product “looks\\nthe way it does in order to be a better [product], not in order\\nto be a better way of identifying who made it”). Where, as\\nhere, the claimed trade dress is unregistered, it is the burden\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 1 In fact, at oral argument, A Top confirmed that it was not arguing\\nthat the SterlingPro did not copy the Chambord, but it instead argued that\\nit “had a right to copy, right down to the last bolt,” because Bodum did\\nnot have a valid trade dress in the Chambord.\\n\\f8 No. 18‐3020\\n\\nof the party asserting protection to prove that the trade dress\\nis not functional. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(3).\\n In deciding whether a trade dress element is functional,\\nwe consider several factors:\\n (1) the existence of a utility patent, expired or\\n unexpired, that involves or describes the func‐\\n tionality of an item’s design element; (2) the util‐\\n itarian properties of the item’s unpatented de‐\\n sign elements; (3) advertising of the item that\\n touts the utilitarian advantages of the item’s de‐\\n sign elements; (4) the dearth of, or difficulty in\\n creating, alternative designs for the item’s pur‐\\n pose; (5) the effect of the design feature on an\\n item’s quality or cost.\\nGa.–Pac. Consumer Prods. LP v. Kimberly–Clark Corp., 647 F.3d\\n723, 727–28 (7th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). No one factor is\\ndispositive. See id. at 728–31 (considering each factor sepa‐\\nrately to determine whether it weighs in favor of or against\\nfunctionality); Valu Eng’g, Inc. v. Rexnord Corp., 278 F.3d 1268,\\n1274–75 (Fed. Cir. 2002).\\n Bodum claims trade dress protection in the overall ap‐\\npearance of the Chambord and identifies the following spe‐\\ncific elements as contributing to that distinctive look: the\\nmetal band surrounding the carafe that forms support feet\\nand the handle attachment, the domed lid, the rounded knob\\natop the plunger, and the C‐shaped handle. See Comput. Care\\nv. Serv. Sys. Enters., Inc., 982 F.2d 1063, 1071 (7th Cir. 1992)\\n(where plaintiff seeks to protect overall appearance of its\\ntrade dress, focus of analysis is on that total appearance rather\\nthan individual design elements in isolation). Bodum does\\n\\fNo. 18‐3020 9\\n\\nnot claim a trade dress in the cylindrical carafe or the plunger,\\nas it acknowledges those elements are functional for a French\\npress coffeemaker.\\n A Top argues Bodum failed to establish that the claimed\\nChambord features are not essential to its use and that these\\nfeatures do not affect the coffeemaker’s cost or quality. How‐\\never, in its argument, A Top consistently elides the distinction\\nbetween a product’s “function” in the everyday meaning of\\nthe term and “functional” as a term of art used in trade dress\\nlaw. Bodum does not claim that any French press coffeemaker\\nwith a handle, a domed top, or metal around the carafe in‐\\nfringes on its trade dress. Rather, it is the overall appearance\\nof A Top’s SterlingPro, which has the same shaped handle, the\\nsame domed lid, the same shaped feet, the same rounded knob,\\nand the same shaped metal frame as the Chambord, that\\nBodum objects to. Thus, to establish it has a valid trade dress,\\nBodum did not have to prove that something like a handle\\ndoes not serve any function. It merely needed to prove that\\npreventing competitors from copying the Chambord’s partic‐\\nular design would not significantly disadvantage them from\\nproducing a competitive and cost‐efficient French press cof‐\\nfeemaker. See Arlington Specialties, 847 F.3d at 419.\\n When properly framed in this manner, Bodum presented\\nsufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that the\\nChambord’s overall look was nonfunctional. First, regarding\\nthe utilitarian properties of the Chambord’s design elements,\\nsee Ga.–Pac. Consumer Prods., 647 F.3d at 728, Bodum’s func‐\\ntionality expert Robert Anders testified about their nonutili‐\\ntarian nature. He testified that the only functional parts of the\\nChambord—the parts that are necessary to make French press\\ncoffee—are the plunger and cylindrical shape of the carafe. In\\n\\f10 No. 18‐3020\\n\\ncontrast, Mr. Anders did not believe the particular C‐shape of\\nthe Chambord’s handle worked better than an alternatively\\nshaped handle and, in fact, testified that he thought the C‐\\nshape was “not as ergonomically designed as it could be.” Mr.\\nAnders further testified that the dome‐shaped lid was an “ar‐\\nbitrary design” because the lid “could be of any shape” in or‐\\nder to work, and the metal frame is “absolutely not” necessary\\nfor the Chambord to make French press coffee.\\n A Top’s expert, Peter Bressler, agreed. He “didn’t see par‐\\nticularly great advantage in the design of the handle, but [he]\\nsaw an advantage in having a handle.” Whether it is more ad‐\\nvantageous for a French press to have a handle, however, is\\nnot the pertinent inquiry; the question is whether there is an\\nadvantage to having this designed handle, to which Mr. Bressler\\nagreed there is not. The same is true of the feet: Mr. Bressler\\ntestified he “didn’t see a particular advantage in the design of\\nthe feet, but [ ] saw the fact that it had feet, which, to [him],\\nwas a utilitarian advantage.” Again, this does not speak to\\nany advantages of the design of the feet. Overall, Mr. Bressler\\ntestified that “[t]he utilitarian advantages … are not that\\nclear.” This evidence weighs in favor of nonfunctionality be‐\\ncause it supports that the claimed Chambord features are\\n“merely ornamental” and are not necessary to make the\\nChambord work better as a French press coffeemaker. Arling‐\\nton Specialties, 847 F.3d at 420 (citation omitted).2\\n\\n\\n 2A Top points to two changes Bodum made to the Chambord in re‐\\nsponse to safety issues the United States Consumer Product Safety Com‐\\nmission raised—reducing the size of the knob and redesigning the lid to\\nfit deeper into the carafe—as evidence the knob and lid are functional.\\nHowever, Bodum could have reduced the size of the knob and made it a\\nflat disk or redesigned the deep‐fitting lid to be flat instead of domed\\n\\fNo. 18‐3020 11\\n\\n Next, A Top argues that Bodum admitted the Chambord\\ndesign was functional in its advertising and thus failed to\\nmeet its burden of proving nonfunctionality. See Ga.–Pac. Con‐\\nsumer Prods., 647 F.3d at 730 (advertising that touts the de‐\\nsign’s “utilitarian advantages” can weigh in favor of function‐\\nality). Indeed, Joergen Bodum, CEO of Bodum’s parent com‐\\npany, testified regarding Chambord advertisements describ‐\\ning the product as “functional” and about an interview he\\ngave in which he described Bodum’s products as “function‐\\ndriven.” However, he also explained that these references to\\nfunctionality were not invoking the term’s legal definition but\\nwere merely intended to convey that Bodum’s products work.\\nIn fact, Bodum’s advertising for the Chambord never claimed\\nany of its design features worked better than other options—\\nfor example, it never claimed the handle is an ergonomic\\nshape nor that its four curved feet provide stability. Rather,\\nthe advertising focused on the classic look of the Chambord\\ndesign. Thus, a reasonable jury could weigh this evidence\\nagainst a finding of functionality in the legal trade dress\\nsense.\\n Additionally, Bodum introduced a plethora of evidence\\nregarding the availability of alternative designs, which sup‐\\nported the Chambord’s lack of functionality. Id. It introduced\\nas trial exhibits competing manufacturers’ French presses fea‐\\nturing different design elements, including those made of dif‐\\nferent materials, with differently shaped handles, lids,\\nplunger knobs, and frames, those that do not have transpar‐\\nent carafes or do not have feet, and those with differently\\n\\nwhile still remedying these safety concerns. There is no evidence that the\\nappearance of the features as redesigned are necessary for a competitive\\nproduct, from a use (or cost) perspective.\\n\\f12 No. 18‐3020\\n\\nshaped external structures surrounding the cylindrical carafe.\\nSee Appellee Br. at 4 (pictures of alternatively designed\\nFrench presses introduced as trial exhibits). More im‐\\nportantly, Bodum introduced evidence that both it and A Top\\nsell French presses with alternative designs and made of dif‐\\nferent materials. Thus, there was ample evidence before the\\njury in Bodum’s favor on this factor.\\n Finally, we must consider the cost or quality advantage\\ntest of functionality. See TrafFix Devices, 532 U.S. at 32; see also\\nGa.–Pac. Consumer Prods., 647 F.3d at 731. Again, Bodum pre‐\\nsented sufficient evidence from which a jury could conclude\\nthat the Chambord’s design conferred no cost or quality ad‐\\nvantage that made it functional. Bodum’s expert, Mr. Anders,\\ntestified the Chambord design was “complex” and that there\\nare “simpler ways of doing this.” He explained the more com‐\\nplex the structure, the more expensive the product is to man‐\\nufacture, so he disagreed with A Top’s expert that the Cham‐\\nbord was the least expensive method to manufacture a French\\npress. Mr. Anders also explained that plastic is generally\\ncheaper to use than metal in manufacturing, so plastic‐framed\\nFrench presses would be cheaper to manufacture than the\\nmetal‐framed Chambord.\\n Joergen Bodum further supported Mr. Anders’s opinion\\nin his testimony regarding the many different French presses\\nBodum produces. For example, Bodum’s “Bistro” French\\npress does not have a metal frame, a domed lid, or a C‐shaped\\nhandle. Mr. Bodum testified that the Bistro is less expensive\\nto produce (“maybe less than half of what it costs to make a\\nChambord”) and less time‐consuming to produce because it\\nrequires less material than the Chambord. Although the Bis‐\\ntro was a successful first product for the company, Mr.\\n\\fNo. 18‐3020 13\\n\\nBodum testified he decided to produce the Chambord, a more\\ncomplex and expensive product, in addition to the Bistro be‐\\ncause he was interested in its iconic French design. Mr.\\nBodum also discussed the manufacturing costs to produce\\nBodum’s various French press coffeemakers. He explained\\nthat the Chambord is neither the cheapest nor the most expen‐\\nsive French press Bodum sells.3 Thus, Mr. Bodum’s testimony\\nsupported that the Chambord’s overall design conferred no\\nparticular cost advantage that made it functional.4\\n\\n 3 A Top repeatedly states in its brief that Mr. Bodum testified the\\nChambord provides a cost advantage. The trial testimony A Top cites for\\nthe proposition, however, does not support this assertion. Though Mr.\\nBodum did answer affirmatively that the Chambord design “gives a cost\\nadvantage in manufacturing over other types of French presses,” it is\\nabundantly clear from the surrounding answers that Mr. Bodum\\nmisspoke in answering this question. Immediately before this answer, Mr.\\nBodum explained that the Chambord is “one of the most expensive” cof‐\\nfeemakers to manufacture, and immediately after, Mr. Bodum confirmed\\nthat the Chambord’s design does not “result from the fact that it was so\\ninexpensive to manufacture.” A Top’s efforts to take Mr. Bodum’s mis‐\\nstatement as an admission are therefore unavailing.\\n 4 A Top relies on Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 786 F.3d 983\\n(Fed. Cir. 2015), rev’d and remanded on other grounds, 137 S. Ct. 429 (2016),\\nto argue that Bodum’s evidence regarding the relative costs of the materials\\nused to make the Chambord is irrelevant and, therefore, that Bodum in‐\\ntroduced nothing to show the Chambord is nonfunctional under the cost\\nadvantage test. Apple, a Federal Circuit case applying Ninth Circuit law,\\nis not controlling here, but in any event, it is distinguishable. In Apple, the\\nplaintiff argued that its unregistered trade dress in its product did not re‐\\nsult from a comparatively simple manufacturing process. Id. at 994. The\\nFederal Circuit, however, noted that the difficulties plaintiff encountered\\nin its manufacturing process resulted from its choice to use certain mate‐\\nrials to improve the durability (i.e., the function) of its product. Id. Thus,\\nthis evidence did not address any cost advantages or disadvantages of\\nplaintiff’s design. Id. Here, however, Bodum introduced evidence that\\n\\f14 No. 18‐3020\\n\\n Indeed, Jian Liang, A Top’s CEO, testified that A Top pro‐\\nduces another French press with a plastic frame that is less\\nexpensive than the metal SterlingPro. This testimony further\\ndemonstrates that the Chambord’s design does not provide a\\ncost advantage. Contrary to A Top’s argument, Bodum pro‐\\nvided evidence sufficient for the jury to conclude that the\\nChambord’s appearance is costlier to manufacture than to de‐\\nsign around, which supports that the Chambord trade dress\\nis not functional. See Thomas & Betts Corp. v. Panduit Corp., 138\\nF.3d 277, 297–98 (7th Cir. 1998).\\n Overall, looking at the evidence in the light most favorable\\nto the verdict, Bodum presented sufficient evidence for the\\njury to have found Bodum’s claimed trade dress was non‐\\nfunctional. We cannot say the jury was irrational to reach this\\nconclusion, so we affirm the denial of A Top’s motion for\\njudgment as a matter of law.\\n B. Exclusion of Utility Patents Evidence\\n A Top also appeals a related issue—the district court’s de‐\\ncision to exclude evidence of various utility patents, which\\nA Top contends demonstrate the functionality of the claimed\\nChambord trade dress features. A district court may exclude\\nrelevant evidence where its probative value is substantially\\noutweighed by, for example, a risk of unfair prejudice or con‐\\nfusing the issues. Fed. R. Evid. 403. We review evidentiary\\nrulings for abuse of discretion and will reverse “only if no rea‐\\nsonable person would agree with the district court’s view.”\\n\\n\\n\\nFrench presses can still function when made out of other materials, like\\nplastic, and that the metal and glass used for the Chambord design do not\\nconfer any particular cost or quality advantage for the product.\\n\\fNo. 18‐3020 15\\n\\nUnited States v. Proano, 912 F.3d 431, 438 (7th Cir. 2019). Fur‐\\nthermore, we accord Rule 403 determinations “‘special defer‐\\nence,’ because only ‘in an extreme case are appellate judges\\ncompetent to second‐guess the judgment of the person on the\\nspot, the trial judge.’” Id. at 440 (quoting United States v. Jack‐\\nson, 898 F.3d 760, 764 (7th Cir. 2018)).\\n As noted above, courts consider “the existence of a utility\\npatent, expired or unexpired, that involves or describes the\\nfunctionality of an item’s design element” in considering\\nwhether a claimed trade dress is functional. Ga.–Pac. Con‐\\nsumer Prods., 647 F.3d at 727–28.5 As the Supreme Court has\\nexplained, a utility patent is “strong evidence that the features\\ntherein claimed are functional.” TrafFix Devices, 532 U.S. at 29.\\nIn other words, “if the ‘central advance’ claimed in the utility\\npatent matches the ‘essential feature’ of the trademark, there\\nis strong evidence that the design is functional.” Ga.–Pac. Con‐\\nsumer Prods., 647 F.3d at 728 (quoting TrafFix Devices, 532 U.S.\\nat 30).\\n Evidence of utility patents came up during Mr. Anders’s\\nexamination. On direct examination, Bodum asked Mr. An‐\\nders a total of seven questions about utility patents and\\nshowed him one patent that A Top’s expert had cited in his\\nreport. Mr. Anders testified that, though a utility patent\\nclaiming a feature is evidence that this feature is functional in\\nthe trade dress sense, he did not find any utility patents cov‐\\nering the Chambord trade dress features. He believed the pa‐\\n\\n\\n\\n 5 A utility patent covers “any new and useful process, machine, man‐\\nufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement\\nthereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.\\n\\f16 No. 18‐3020\\n\\ntent A Top’s expert cited only disclosed the plunger rod en‐\\ngaging with the cylindrical walls of the carafe, which Mr. An‐\\nders explained is a feature in all French presses and has no\\nbearing on the Chambord trade dress.\\n On cross examination, A Top asked Mr. Anders many ad‐\\nditional questions about patents and showed him approxi‐\\nmately ten utility patents. A Top questioned Mr. Anders\\nabout whether the patents disclosed the same elements\\nBodum claims as part of the Chambord trade dress—a domed\\nlid, a handle, and a circular knob atop the plunger. However,\\ncounsel only provided Mr. Anders with the pictures from the\\npatents, not the portion of the patents explaining the claims.\\nMr. Anders testified that he believed utility patents describe\\nthe claims in words, not in the illustrations, so he would not\\nagree the patents disclosed any elements of the Chambord\\ntrade dress based solely on a review of the pictures.\\n Bodum’s counsel objected to the admission of the patents\\nas evidence. The court provisionally admitted the patents for\\nBodum’s redirect examination of Mr. Anders and then heard\\narguments on the objection at the next break in the trial.\\nBodum argued the patents A Top sought to have admitted\\nwere irrelevant because they were not patents for any Bodum\\nor A Top product and were not patents of identical designs.\\nBodum also argued the proposed exhibits were incomplete as\\nthey were only a portion of the patents. The district court re‐\\nquested briefing on the issue of whether utility patents for\\nsimilar but not identical products are relevant to the question\\nof functionality and requested complete copies of each patent.\\n After reviewing the parties’ arguments and the entire pa‐\\ntents, the district court excluded them from evidence. The\\ncourt explained it did not matter that the patents were for\\n\\fNo. 18‐3020 17\\n\\nother parties’ products but it did matter whether the features\\nBodum claimed as part of its trade dress were disclosed in the\\npatents. The court asked A Top to point to language in any of\\nthe patents it sought to admit that claimed as part of the pa‐\\ntent “any of the features that [Bodum] says are part of its trade\\ndress.” A Top could not, however, find any such language.\\nThough it continued to insist the patents described knobs and\\ndomed lids, it could not point to any language in the patents\\nto support this contention. The patent A Top claimed “most\\nilluminating” described: “The system of Claim 1 or the cover\\nmeans comprising removable cover for the drinking vessel\\nadapted to fit over the top of the vessel, having an opening\\nthrough which the push rod extends the sliding movement\\nrelative to the cover.”6 But A Top was unable to point to a\\nsingle patent that claimed a domed lid, a C‐shaped handle, feet\\non the bottom of the carafe, or a metallic castle‐shaped cage—\\nthe design elements Bodum claims as its trade dress.\\n The district court reviewed the jury instruction on\\nwhether a patent discloses the “practical advantages” of the\\ndesign and explained that TrafFix Devices requires that the pa‐\\ntent somewhere (not necessarily in the claims portion of the\\npatent) claim the trade dress features in some “significant\\nway.” Here, none of the patents did so. Though some of the\\nFrench presses in the patent pictures had a handle, feet, or\\nsomething on top of the plunger, the court did not think that\\n“bears on the question of whether it’s functional as … trade\\ndress law defines that term.” The court elaborated:\\n\\n\\n\\n 6 During argument on the objection, A Top described this as the Banks\\n\\npatent, 5,618,570, which does not appear to be in the record and is not\\nmentioned in either party’s appellate briefs.\\n\\f18 No. 18‐3020\\n\\n [T]here is a massive potential for jury confusion\\n here if these things are used in the way, frankly,\\n that they were used during the cross‐examina‐\\n tion of the [ ] expert. You put a picture up there,\\n that’s got a handle, it’s got a knob, it’s got a\\n plunger, it’s cylindrical like yours, that’s not\\n what the inquiry is. The inquiry isn’t whether\\n somebody has drawn this picture before. The\\n inquiry is whether … the features are claimed in\\n a patent in a way that shows that they have\\n some sort of a function.\\n The court then concluded: “I don’t think it’s relevant. If it’s\\nrelevant, it has teeny teeny probative value, massive potential\\nfor jury confusion. It’s excluded under Rule 403.” The court\\ndid not permit A Top to use the patent evidence with its ex‐\\npert and gave the jury a curative instruction: “During the\\ncross‐examination of witness Robert Anders, he was shown\\ncertain pages from certain patents. I have excluded those pa‐\\ntents from the evidence in this case. You are not to consider\\nthem for any purpose.”\\n The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding\\nthis evidence. The patents A Top sought to introduce do not\\nclaim any of the features that comprise the claimed Cham‐\\nbord trade dress. See TrafFix Devices, 532 U.S. at 29 (utility pa‐\\ntents are evidence “that the features therein claimed are func‐\\ntional” (emphasis added)). That the patents disclose a plunger\\nand cylindrical carafe are irrelevant because Bodum does not\\nclaim those elements as part of its trade dress. And the pic‐\\ntures in the patents showing French presses with handles,\\ndomed lids, or knobs are irrelevant to the legal question of\\nfunctionality because the patents do not claim any of those\\n\\fNo. 18‐3020 19\\n\\nfeatures as part of the patented invention. Permitting the jury\\nto view and consider the patents would cause confusion as to\\nthe appropriate inquiry for functionality.\\n A Top also claims that whether a patent discloses a fea‐\\nture’s utility is a question of fact for the jury and, as such, the\\ndistrict court erred in excluding the patents from the jury’s\\nconsideration. In Thomas & Betts, we explained that a “utility\\npatent must be examined in detail to determine whether or\\nnot the disclosed configuration is really primarily functional\\nor just incidentally appears in the disclosure of a patent.” 138\\nF.3d at 300 (quoting J. Thomas McCarthy, 1 McCarthy on\\nTrademarks and Unfair Competition § 6:10 (4th ed. 1996)).\\nThere, the district court determined at summary judgment\\nthat because the claimed feature was part of a patent and did\\nnot appear incidentally, it was primarily a functional feature.\\nId. On appeal, we determined that this conclusion “necessi‐\\ntated a weighing of the evidence,” so a jury should have had\\nthe opportunity to decide how much weight to give the patent\\nconsidering all the other evidence presented on the function‐\\nality issue. Id. The district court’s decision here is consistent\\nwith Thomas & Betts. The court excluded the evidence under\\nRule 403, an evidentiary rule that tasks the judge with balanc‐\\ning the exclusion of relevant evidence with the risk of harm\\nfrom admission. The district court did not decide the func‐\\ntionality question; it determined that the patent evidence,\\nwhile relevant to the question of functionality, posed too sig‐\\nnificant a risk of jury confusion (an issue not raised by the pa‐\\ntent evidence in Thomas & Betts).\\n This is not one of those extreme cases in which we second‐\\nguess the trial judge’s weighing of the probative value of the\\nevidence with the potential for jury confusion on a Rule 403\\n\\f20 No. 18‐3020\\n\\nissue. We affirm the court’s denial of A Top’s motion for a\\nnew trial.7\\n III. Conclusion\\n For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the\\ndistrict court.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 7In its opening brief, A Top cites to the standard of review for a mo‐\\ntion for a new trial based on improper jury instructions. However, A Top\\ndoes not develop an argument based on any problem with the court’s in‐\\nstructions, and so we do not address this issue. See Ienco v. Angarone, 429\\nF.3d 680, 685 (7th Cir. 2005).\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4406124/\", \"author_raw\": \"Joel Martin Flaum\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"FLAUM"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"MANION"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"BARRETT"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4628871/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":6,"string":"6"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: BODUM USA, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. a TOP NEW CASTING INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellant.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-06-12\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18‐3020\nBODUM USA, INCORPORATED,\n Plaintiff‐Appellee,\n v.\n\nA TOP NEW CASTING INCORPORATED,\n Defendant‐Appellant.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 16‐cv‐02916 — Matthew F. Kennelly, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED MAY 30, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 12, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before FLAUM, MANION, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.\n FLAUM, Circuit Judge. Bodum USA, Inc. (“Bodum”) pro‐\nduces and sells what design magazines and art museums\nhave recognized as an iconically designed houseware prod‐\nuct—the Chambord French press coffeemaker. Bodum sued\nA Top New Casting, Inc. (“A Top”) for selling a French press\nthat Bodum claimed infringes on its unregistered trade dress\nin the Chambord. After a five‐day trial, a jury returned a ver‐\n\f2 No. 18‐3020\n\ndict in favor of Bodum, finding that A Top had willfully in‐\nfringed on Bodum’s trade dress in the Chambord and award‐\ning Bodum $2 million in damages. The district court denied\nA Top’s post‐trial motion for judgment as a matter of law, in\nwhich A Top argued that Bodum failed to prove the Cham‐\nbord design was nonfunctional. A Top also moved for a new\ntrial because the court excluded evidence of various utility pa‐\ntents covering French press coffeemakers; the district court\ndenied this motion as well. We affirm.\n I. Background\n Plaintiff‐appellee Bodum has been selling French press\ncoffeemakers since the 1970s. A French press is a nonelectric\ncoffeemaker consisting of a cylindrical carafe and a plunger\nattached to a filter screen. The user adds boiling water to cof‐\nfee grounds in the carafe and, after the grounds have steeped,\npresses the filter down slowly through the carafe to separate\nthe used grounds from the brewed coffee.\n Bodum began distributing the Chambord, its flagship\nFrench press, in 1983. The Chambord’s design originated in\nFrance in the 1930s and is based on the towers of the Cham‐\nbord Chateau, a castle in France’s Loire Valley. Its features in‐\nclude a metal cage with a band around the top of the carafe,\nmetal pillars ending in four curved feet, a C‐shaped handle,\nand a domed lid topped with a spherical knob. Bodum’s\nChambord French press is pictured below:\n\fNo. 18‐3020 3\n\n\n\n\n Bodum acquired exclusive rights to distribute the Cham‐\nbord in 1991 and has spent millions of dollars promoting it in\nprint and television advertisements and at trade shows\nworldwide. Bodum sells the Chambord in department stores,\nat Starbucks coffee shops, and online, including through Am‐\nazon. The Chambord design has been recognized as classic by\nsuch institutions as Phaidon Design Classics and the Museum\nof Modern Art. Bodum actively polices whatever it believes\nto be infringement of this design; it has sent dozens of cease‐\nand‐desist letters over the past twenty‐five years and has filed\nlawsuits against alleged infringers when they did not stop\nselling their products in response to Bodum’s requests.\n In 2014, defendant‐appellant A Top began selling a com‐\npeting French press coffeemaker called the SterlingPro exclu‐\nsively through Amazon. The SterlingPro is similar in appear‐\nance to the Chambord, with the same metal cage, metal pillars\nending in curved feet, C‐shaped handle, and domed lid\n\f4 No. 18‐3020\n\ntopped with a spherical knob. The two coffeemakers are pic‐\ntured side‐by‐side below, with the Chambord on the left and\nthe SterlingPro on the right:\n\n\n\n\n Bodum filed a complaint against A Top in the Northern\nDistrict of Illinois on March 7, 2016, bringing claims for trade\ndress infringement under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.\n§ 1125(a); common law unfair competition; and violation of\nthe Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 815 Ill.\nComp. Stat. § 510/1 et seq. According to Bodum’s complaint,\nA Top intentionally adopted the overall appearance of the\nChambord for its SterlingPro product, infringing on its unreg‐\nistered trade dress in the design. A Top moved for summary\njudgment on Bodum’s claims twice, but the district court de‐\nnied these motions and the case proceeded to a jury trial on\nMarch 28, 2018.\n The jury returned a verdict in Bodum’s favor, finding that\nA Top willfully infringed on Bodum’s Chambord trade dress\nand awarding Bodum $2 million in damages. A Top timely\nmoved for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of\n\fNo. 18‐3020 5\n\nCivil Procedure 50 and for a new trial under Rule 59. As rele‐\nvant here, A Top claimed that it was entitled to judgment as a\nmatter of law because Bodum had failed to prove its Cham‐\nbord trade dress elements were nonfunctional. And A Top\nsaid it was at least entitled to a new trial because the district\ncourt erred in excluding evidence under Rule 403 of utility\npatents that, it said, disclosed the Chambord’s trade dress fea‐\ntures (demonstrating the functionality of those features). The\ndistrict court denied both motions on June 6, 2018.\n On August 21, 2018, the district court granted Bodum’s\nmotion for enhanced damages, awarding prejudgment inter‐\nest and doubling the damages award to $4 million, and it de‐\nnied Bodum’s motion for attorney’s fees. Further, the court\ngranted Bodum’s request for a permanent injunction to pre‐\nvent A Top from continuing to sell its infringing SterlingPro\nproducts. The district court entered final judgment on August\n23, and A Top timely appealed.\n II. Discussion\n A Top pursues two arguments on appeal. First, A Top says\nthat it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because\nBodum did not meet its burden of demonstrating that the el‐\nements of the claimed Chambord trade dress were nonfunc‐\ntional (as required for it to be enforceable under the Lanham\nAct). Second, A Top claims that it is entitled to a new trial be‐\ncause the district court improperly excluded several utility\npatents from evidence under Rule 403.\n A. Functionality of the Chambord Trade Dress\n We review de novo the denial of a Rule 50 motion for judg‐\nment as a matter of law. Thorne v. Member Select Ins. Co., 882\nF.3d 642, 644 (7th Cir. 2018). “Because a jury has rendered a\n\f6 No. 18‐3020\n\nverdict, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to\nthat verdict.” Matthews v. Wis. Energy Corp., 642 F.3d 565, 567\n(7th Cir. 2011). In our review, we do not make credibility de‐\nterminations or reweigh the evidence; we need only deter‐\nmine that there is more than “a mere scintilla of evidence” to\nsupport the verdict. May v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 716 F.3d 963,\n971 (7th Cir. 2013) (quoting Hossack v. Floor Covering Assoc. of\nJoliet, Inc., 492 F.3d 853, 859 (7th Cir. 2007)). “In other words,\nour job is to decide whether a highly charitable assessment of\nthe evidence supports the jury’s verdict or if, instead, the jury\nwas irrational to reach its conclusion.” Id.\n The Lanham Act permits a civil action against any person\nwho uses “any word, term, name, symbol, or device” “in con‐\nnection with any goods or services” in a manner which “is\nlikely to cause confusion” as to the source of those goods or\nservices. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A). The Act’s protection ex‐\ntends to a product’s trade dress, which includes a product de‐\nsign that is so distinctive it identifies the product’s source. Ar‐\nlington Specialties, Inc. v. Urban Aid, Inc., 847 F.3d 415, 418 (7th\nCir. 2017); see also TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Mktg. Displays, Inc.,\n532 U.S. 23, 28 (2001) (“The design or packaging of a product\nmay acquire a distinctiveness which serves to identify the\nproduct with its manufacturer or source; and a design or\npackage which acquires this secondary meaning … is a trade\ndress[.]”). As with any other trademark, infringement of a\nproduct’s trade dress is actionable under the Act. Arlington\nSpecialties, 847 F.3d at 418.\n At trial, Bodum was required to prove a number of ele‐\nments for the jury to find trade dress infringement—that it\nowns a valid trade dress in the Chambord design, that the\ntrade dress is not functional, and that A Top’s SterlingPro was\n\fNo. 18‐3020 7\n\nlikely to cause consumer confusion as to its source. See id. On\nappeal, A Top does not dispute that the SterlingPro copies the\nChambord. Instead, A Top only challenges Bodum’s proof on\nthe functionality of its claimed trade dress.1\n Trademark protection for trade dress, unlike patent and\ncopyright protection, has no time limit; the Act therefore does\nnot protect features that are necessary for the use of a product,\nso as to prevent one competitor from maintaining a “perpet‐\nual and exclusive right to a useful product feature.” Id. (citing\nQualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co., 514 U.S. 159, 165 (1995)). The\nSupreme Court has explained that “‘a product feature is func‐\ntional,’ and cannot serve as a trademark, ‘if it is essential to\nthe use or purpose of the article or if it affects the cost or qual‐\nity of the article.’” Qualitex, 514 U.S. at 165 (quoting Inwood\nLabs., Inc. v. Ives Labs., Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 850 n.10 (1982)). Even\nif a claimed trade dress does not satisfy this first test, “it can\nstill be functional if it is a ‘competitive necessity,’ that is, if its\nexclusive use ‘would put competitors at a significant non‐rep‐\nutation‐related disadvantage.’” Arlington Specialties, 847 F.3d\nat 419 (quoting TrafFix Devices, 532 U.S. at 32–33)); see also Spe‐\ncialized Seating, Inc. v. Greenwich Indus., LP, 616 F.3d 722, 727\n(7th Cir. 2010) (a design is functional where a product “looks\nthe way it does in order to be a better [product], not in order\nto be a better way of identifying who made it”). Where, as\nhere, the claimed trade dress is unregistered, it is the burden\n\n\n\n\n 1 In fact, at oral argument, A Top confirmed that it was not arguing\nthat the SterlingPro did not copy the Chambord, but it instead argued that\nit “had a right to copy, right down to the last bolt,” because Bodum did\nnot have a valid trade dress in the Chambord.\n\f8 No. 18‐3020\n\nof the party asserting protection to prove that the trade dress\nis not functional. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(3).\n In deciding whether a trade dress element is functional,\nwe consider several factors:\n (1) the existence of a utility patent, expired or\n unexpired, that involves or describes the func‐\n tionality of an item’s design element; (2) the util‐\n itarian properties of the item’s unpatented de‐\n sign elements; (3) advertising of the item that\n touts the utilitarian advantages of the item’s de‐\n sign elements; (4) the dearth of, or difficulty in\n creating, alternative designs for the item’s pur‐\n pose; (5) the effect of the design feature on an\n item’s quality or cost.\nGa.–Pac. Consumer Prods. LP v. Kimberly–Clark Corp., 647 F.3d\n723, 727–28 (7th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). No one factor is\ndispositive. See id. at 728–31 (considering each factor sepa‐\nrately to determine whether it weighs in favor of or against\nfunctionality); Valu Eng’g, Inc. v. Rexnord Corp., 278 F.3d 1268,\n1274–75 (Fed. Cir. 2002).\n Bodum claims trade dress protection in the overall ap‐\npearance of the Chambord and identifies the following spe‐\ncific elements as contributing to that distinctive look: the\nmetal band surrounding the carafe that forms support feet\nand the handle attachment, the domed lid, the rounded knob\natop the plunger, and the C‐shaped handle. See Comput. Care\nv. Serv. Sys. Enters., Inc., 982 F.2d 1063, 1071 (7th Cir. 1992)\n(where plaintiff seeks to protect overall appearance of its\ntrade dress, focus of analysis is on that total appearance rather\nthan individual design elements in isolation). Bodum does\n\fNo. 18‐3020 9\n\nnot claim a trade dress in the cylindrical carafe or the plunger,\nas it acknowledges those elements are functional for a French\npress coffeemaker.\n A Top argues Bodum failed to establish that the claimed\nChambord features are not essential to its use and that these\nfeatures do not affect the coffeemaker’s cost or quality. How‐\never, in its argument, A Top consistently elides the distinction\nbetween a product’s “function” in the everyday meaning of\nthe term and “functional” as a term of art used in trade dress\nlaw. Bodum does not claim that any French press coffeemaker\nwith a handle, a domed top, or metal around the carafe in‐\nfringes on its trade dress. Rather, it is the overall appearance\nof A Top’s SterlingPro, which has the same shaped handle, the\nsame domed lid, the same shaped feet, the same rounded knob,\nand the same shaped metal frame as the Chambord, that\nBodum objects to. Thus, to establish it has a valid trade dress,\nBodum did not have to prove that something like a handle\ndoes not serve any function. It merely needed to prove that\npreventing competitors from copying the Chambord’s partic‐\nular design would not significantly disadvantage them from\nproducing a competitive and cost‐efficient French press cof‐\nfeemaker. See Arlington Specialties, 847 F.3d at 419.\n When properly framed in this manner, Bodum presented\nsufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that the\nChambord’s overall look was nonfunctional. First, regarding\nthe utilitarian properties of the Chambord’s design elements,\nsee Ga.–Pac. Consumer Prods., 647 F.3d at 728, Bodum’s func‐\ntionality expert Robert Anders testified about their nonutili‐\ntarian nature. He testified that the only functional parts of the\nChambord—the parts that are necessary to make French press\ncoffee—are the plunger and cylindrical shape of the carafe. In\n\f10 No. 18‐3020\n\ncontrast, Mr. Anders did not believe the particular C‐shape of\nthe Chambord’s handle worked better than an alternatively\nshaped handle and, in fact, testified that he thought the C‐\nshape was “not as ergonomically designed as it could be.” Mr.\nAnders further testified that the dome‐shaped lid was an “ar‐\nbitrary design” because the lid “could be of any shape” in or‐\nder to work, and the metal frame is “absolutely not” necessary\nfor the Chambord to make French press coffee.\n A Top’s expert, Peter Bressler, agreed. He “didn’t see par‐\nticularly great advantage in the design of the handle, but [he]\nsaw an advantage in having a handle.” Whether it is more ad‐\nvantageous for a French press to have a handle, however, is\nnot the pertinent inquiry; the question is whether there is an\nadvantage to having this designed handle, to which Mr. Bressler\nagreed there is not. The same is true of the feet: Mr. Bressler\ntestified he “didn’t see a particular advantage in the design of\nthe feet, but [ ] saw the fact that it had feet, which, to [him],\nwas a utilitarian advantage.” Again, this does not speak to\nany advantages of the design of the feet. Overall, Mr. Bressler\ntestified that “[t]he utilitarian advantages … are not that\nclear.” This evidence weighs in favor of nonfunctionality be‐\ncause it supports that the claimed Chambord features are\n“merely ornamental” and are not necessary to make the\nChambord work better as a French press coffeemaker. Arling‐\nton Specialties, 847 F.3d at 420 (citation omitted).2\n\n\n 2A Top points to two changes Bodum made to the Chambord in re‐\nsponse to safety issues the United States Consumer Product Safety Com‐\nmission raised—reducing the size of the knob and redesigning the lid to\nfit deeper into the carafe—as evidence the knob and lid are functional.\nHowever, Bodum could have reduced the size of the knob and made it a\nflat disk or redesigned the deep‐fitting lid to be flat instead of domed\n\fNo. 18‐3020 11\n\n Next, A Top argues that Bodum admitted the Chambord\ndesign was functional in its advertising and thus failed to\nmeet its burden of proving nonfunctionality. See Ga.–Pac. Con‐\nsumer Prods., 647 F.3d at 730 (advertising that touts the de‐\nsign’s “utilitarian advantages” can weigh in favor of function‐\nality). Indeed, Joergen Bodum, CEO of Bodum’s parent com‐\npany, testified regarding Chambord advertisements describ‐\ning the product as “functional” and about an interview he\ngave in which he described Bodum’s products as “function‐\ndriven.” However, he also explained that these references to\nfunctionality were not invoking the term’s legal definition but\nwere merely intended to convey that Bodum’s products work.\nIn fact, Bodum’s advertising for the Chambord never claimed\nany of its design features worked better than other options—\nfor example, it never claimed the handle is an ergonomic\nshape nor that its four curved feet provide stability. Rather,\nthe advertising focused on the classic look of the Chambord\ndesign. Thus, a reasonable jury could weigh this evidence\nagainst a finding of functionality in the legal trade dress\nsense.\n Additionally, Bodum introduced a plethora of evidence\nregarding the availability of alternative designs, which sup‐\nported the Chambord’s lack of functionality. Id. It introduced\nas trial exhibits competing manufacturers’ French presses fea‐\nturing different design elements, including those made of dif‐\nferent materials, with differently shaped handles, lids,\nplunger knobs, and frames, those that do not have transpar‐\nent carafes or do not have feet, and those with differently\n\nwhile still remedying these safety concerns. There is no evidence that the\nappearance of the features as redesigned are necessary for a competitive\nproduct, from a use (or cost) perspective.\n\f12 No. 18‐3020\n\nshaped external structures surrounding the cylindrical carafe.\nSee Appellee Br. at 4 (pictures of alternatively designed\nFrench presses introduced as trial exhibits). More im‐\nportantly, Bodum introduced evidence that both it and A Top\nsell French presses with alternative designs and made of dif‐\nferent materials. Thus, there was ample evidence before the\njury in Bodum’s favor on this factor.\n Finally, we must consider the cost or quality advantage\ntest of functionality. See TrafFix Devices, 532 U.S. at 32; see also\nGa.–Pac. Consumer Prods., 647 F.3d at 731. Again, Bodum pre‐\nsented sufficient evidence from which a jury could conclude\nthat the Chambord’s design conferred no cost or quality ad‐\nvantage that made it functional. Bodum’s expert, Mr. Anders,\ntestified the Chambord design was “complex” and that there\nare “simpler ways of doing this.” He explained the more com‐\nplex the structure, the more expensive the product is to man‐\nufacture, so he disagreed with A Top’s expert that the Cham‐\nbord was the least expensive method to manufacture a French\npress. Mr. Anders also explained that plastic is generally\ncheaper to use than metal in manufacturing, so plastic‐framed\nFrench presses would be cheaper to manufacture than the\nmetal‐framed Chambord.\n Joergen Bodum further supported Mr. Anders’s opinion\nin his testimony regarding the many different French presses\nBodum produces. For example, Bodum’s “Bistro” French\npress does not have a metal frame, a domed lid, or a C‐shaped\nhandle. Mr. Bodum testified that the Bistro is less expensive\nto produce (“maybe less than half of what it costs to make a\nChambord”) and less time‐consuming to produce because it\nrequires less material than the Chambord. Although the Bis‐\ntro was a successful first product for the company, Mr.\n\fNo. 18‐3020 13\n\nBodum testified he decided to produce the Chambord, a more\ncomplex and expensive product, in addition to the Bistro be‐\ncause he was interested in its iconic French design. Mr.\nBodum also discussed the manufacturing costs to produce\nBodum’s various French press coffeemakers. He explained\nthat the Chambord is neither the cheapest nor the most expen‐\nsive French press Bodum sells.3 Thus, Mr. Bodum’s testimony\nsupported that the Chambord’s overall design conferred no\nparticular cost advantage that made it functional.4\n\n 3 A Top repeatedly states in its brief that Mr. Bodum testified the\nChambord provides a cost advantage. The trial testimony A Top cites for\nthe proposition, however, does not support this assertion. Though Mr.\nBodum did answer affirmatively that the Chambord design “gives a cost\nadvantage in manufacturing over other types of French presses,” it is\nabundantly clear from the surrounding answers that Mr. Bodum\nmisspoke in answering this question. Immediately before this answer, Mr.\nBodum explained that the Chambord is “one of the most expensive” cof‐\nfeemakers to manufacture, and immediately after, Mr. Bodum confirmed\nthat the Chambord’s design does not “result from the fact that it was so\ninexpensive to manufacture.” A Top’s efforts to take Mr. Bodum’s mis‐\nstatement as an admission are therefore unavailing.\n 4 A Top relies on Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 786 F.3d 983\n(Fed. Cir. 2015), rev’d and remanded on other grounds, 137 S. Ct. 429 (2016),\nto argue that Bodum’s evidence regarding the relative costs of the materials\nused to make the Chambord is irrelevant and, therefore, that Bodum in‐\ntroduced nothing to show the Chambord is nonfunctional under the cost\nadvantage test. Apple, a Federal Circuit case applying Ninth Circuit law,\nis not controlling here, but in any event, it is distinguishable. In Apple, the\nplaintiff argued that its unregistered trade dress in its product did not re‐\nsult from a comparatively simple manufacturing process. Id. at 994. The\nFederal Circuit, however, noted that the difficulties plaintiff encountered\nin its manufacturing process resulted from its choice to use certain mate‐\nrials to improve the durability (i.e., the function) of its product. Id. Thus,\nthis evidence did not address any cost advantages or disadvantages of\nplaintiff’s design. Id. Here, however, Bodum introduced evidence that\n\f14 No. 18‐3020\n\n Indeed, Jian Liang, A Top’s CEO, testified that A Top pro‐\nduces another French press with a plastic frame that is less\nexpensive than the metal SterlingPro. This testimony further\ndemonstrates that the Chambord’s design does not provide a\ncost advantage. Contrary to A Top’s argument, Bodum pro‐\nvided evidence sufficient for the jury to conclude that the\nChambord’s appearance is costlier to manufacture than to de‐\nsign around, which supports that the Chambord trade dress\nis not functional. See Thomas & Betts Corp. v. Panduit Corp., 138\nF.3d 277, 297–98 (7th Cir. 1998).\n Overall, looking at the evidence in the light most favorable\nto the verdict, Bodum presented sufficient evidence for the\njury to have found Bodum’s claimed trade dress was non‐\nfunctional. We cannot say the jury was irrational to reach this\nconclusion, so we affirm the denial of A Top’s motion for\njudgment as a matter of law.\n B. Exclusion of Utility Patents Evidence\n A Top also appeals a related issue—the district court’s de‐\ncision to exclude evidence of various utility patents, which\nA Top contends demonstrate the functionality of the claimed\nChambord trade dress features. A district court may exclude\nrelevant evidence where its probative value is substantially\noutweighed by, for example, a risk of unfair prejudice or con‐\nfusing the issues. Fed. R. Evid. 403. We review evidentiary\nrulings for abuse of discretion and will reverse “only if no rea‐\nsonable person would agree with the district court’s view.”\n\n\n\nFrench presses can still function when made out of other materials, like\nplastic, and that the metal and glass used for the Chambord design do not\nconfer any particular cost or quality advantage for the product.\n\fNo. 18‐3020 15\n\nUnited States v. Proano, 912 F.3d 431, 438 (7th Cir. 2019). Fur‐\nthermore, we accord Rule 403 determinations “‘special defer‐\nence,’ because only ‘in an extreme case are appellate judges\ncompetent to second‐guess the judgment of the person on the\nspot, the trial judge.’” Id. at 440 (quoting United States v. Jack‐\nson, 898 F.3d 760, 764 (7th Cir. 2018)).\n As noted above, courts consider “the existence of a utility\npatent, expired or unexpired, that involves or describes the\nfunctionality of an item’s design element” in considering\nwhether a claimed trade dress is functional. Ga.–Pac. Con‐\nsumer Prods., 647 F.3d at 727–28.5 As the Supreme Court has\nexplained, a utility patent is “strong evidence that the features\ntherein claimed are functional.” TrafFix Devices, 532 U.S. at 29.\nIn other words, “if the ‘central advance’ claimed in the utility\npatent matches the ‘essential feature’ of the trademark, there\nis strong evidence that the design is functional.” Ga.–Pac. Con‐\nsumer Prods., 647 F.3d at 728 (quoting TrafFix Devices, 532 U.S.\nat 30).\n Evidence of utility patents came up during Mr. Anders’s\nexamination. On direct examination, Bodum asked Mr. An‐\nders a total of seven questions about utility patents and\nshowed him one patent that A Top’s expert had cited in his\nreport. Mr. Anders testified that, though a utility patent\nclaiming a feature is evidence that this feature is functional in\nthe trade dress sense, he did not find any utility patents cov‐\nering the Chambord trade dress features. He believed the pa‐\n\n\n\n 5 A utility patent covers “any new and useful process, machine, man‐\nufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement\nthereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.\n\f16 No. 18‐3020\n\ntent A Top’s expert cited only disclosed the plunger rod en‐\ngaging with the cylindrical walls of the carafe, which Mr. An‐\nders explained is a feature in all French presses and has no\nbearing on the Chambord trade dress.\n On cross examination, A Top asked Mr. Anders many ad‐\nditional questions about patents and showed him approxi‐\nmately ten utility patents. A Top questioned Mr. Anders\nabout whether the patents disclosed the same elements\nBodum claims as part of the Chambord trade dress—a domed\nlid, a handle, and a circular knob atop the plunger. However,\ncounsel only provided Mr. Anders with the pictures from the\npatents, not the portion of the patents explaining the claims.\nMr. Anders testified that he believed utility patents describe\nthe claims in words, not in the illustrations, so he would not\nagree the patents disclosed any elements of the Chambord\ntrade dress based solely on a review of the pictures.\n Bodum’s counsel objected to the admission of the patents\nas evidence. The court provisionally admitted the patents for\nBodum’s redirect examination of Mr. Anders and then heard\narguments on the objection at the next break in the trial.\nBodum argued the patents A Top sought to have admitted\nwere irrelevant because they were not patents for any Bodum\nor A Top product and were not patents of identical designs.\nBodum also argued the proposed exhibits were incomplete as\nthey were only a portion of the patents. The district court re‐\nquested briefing on the issue of whether utility patents for\nsimilar but not identical products are relevant to the question\nof functionality and requested complete copies of each patent.\n After reviewing the parties’ arguments and the entire pa‐\ntents, the district court excluded them from evidence. The\ncourt explained it did not matter that the patents were for\n\fNo. 18‐3020 17\n\nother parties’ products but it did matter whether the features\nBodum claimed as part of its trade dress were disclosed in the\npatents. The court asked A Top to point to language in any of\nthe patents it sought to admit that claimed as part of the pa‐\ntent “any of the features that [Bodum] says are part of its trade\ndress.” A Top could not, however, find any such language.\nThough it continued to insist the patents described knobs and\ndomed lids, it could not point to any language in the patents\nto support this contention. The patent A Top claimed “most\nilluminating” described: “The system of Claim 1 or the cover\nmeans comprising removable cover for the drinking vessel\nadapted to fit over the top of the vessel, having an opening\nthrough which the push rod extends the sliding movement\nrelative to the cover.”6 But A Top was unable to point to a\nsingle patent that claimed a domed lid, a C‐shaped handle, feet\non the bottom of the carafe, or a metallic castle‐shaped cage—\nthe design elements Bodum claims as its trade dress.\n The district court reviewed the jury instruction on\nwhether a patent discloses the “practical advantages” of the\ndesign and explained that TrafFix Devices requires that the pa‐\ntent somewhere (not necessarily in the claims portion of the\npatent) claim the trade dress features in some “significant\nway.” Here, none of the patents did so. Though some of the\nFrench presses in the patent pictures had a handle, feet, or\nsomething on top of the plunger, the court did not think that\n“bears on the question of whether it’s functional as … trade\ndress law defines that term.” The court elaborated:\n\n\n\n 6 During argument on the objection, A Top described this as the Banks\n\npatent, 5,618,570, which does not appear to be in the record and is not\nmentioned in either party’s appellate briefs.\n\f18 No. 18‐3020\n\n [T]here is a massive potential for jury confusion\n here if these things are used in the way, frankly,\n that they were used during the cross‐examina‐\n tion of the [ ] expert. You put a picture up there,\n that’s got a handle, it’s got a knob, it’s got a\n plunger, it’s cylindrical like yours, that’s not\n what the inquiry is. The inquiry isn’t whether\n somebody has drawn this picture before. The\n inquiry is whether … the features are claimed in\n a patent in a way that shows that they have\n some sort of a function.\n The court then concluded: “I don’t think it’s relevant. If it’s\nrelevant, it has teeny teeny probative value, massive potential\nfor jury confusion. It’s excluded under Rule 403.” The court\ndid not permit A Top to use the patent evidence with its ex‐\npert and gave the jury a curative instruction: “During the\ncross‐examination of witness Robert Anders, he was shown\ncertain pages from certain patents. I have excluded those pa‐\ntents from the evidence in this case. You are not to consider\nthem for any purpose.”\n The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding\nthis evidence. The patents A Top sought to introduce do not\nclaim any of the features that comprise the claimed Cham‐\nbord trade dress. See TrafFix Devices, 532 U.S. at 29 (utility pa‐\ntents are evidence “that the features therein claimed are func‐\ntional” (emphasis added)). That the patents disclose a plunger\nand cylindrical carafe are irrelevant because Bodum does not\nclaim those elements as part of its trade dress. And the pic‐\ntures in the patents showing French presses with handles,\ndomed lids, or knobs are irrelevant to the legal question of\nfunctionality because the patents do not claim any of those\n\fNo. 18‐3020 19\n\nfeatures as part of the patented invention. Permitting the jury\nto view and consider the patents would cause confusion as to\nthe appropriate inquiry for functionality.\n A Top also claims that whether a patent discloses a fea‐\nture’s utility is a question of fact for the jury and, as such, the\ndistrict court erred in excluding the patents from the jury’s\nconsideration. In Thomas & Betts, we explained that a “utility\npatent must be examined in detail to determine whether or\nnot the disclosed configuration is really primarily functional\nor just incidentally appears in the disclosure of a patent.” 138\nF.3d at 300 (quoting J. Thomas McCarthy, 1 McCarthy on\nTrademarks and Unfair Competition § 6:10 (4th ed. 1996)).\nThere, the district court determined at summary judgment\nthat because the claimed feature was part of a patent and did\nnot appear incidentally, it was primarily a functional feature.\nId. On appeal, we determined that this conclusion “necessi‐\ntated a weighing of the evidence,” so a jury should have had\nthe opportunity to decide how much weight to give the patent\nconsidering all the other evidence presented on the function‐\nality issue. Id. The district court’s decision here is consistent\nwith Thomas & Betts. The court excluded the evidence under\nRule 403, an evidentiary rule that tasks the judge with balanc‐\ning the exclusion of relevant evidence with the risk of harm\nfrom admission. The district court did not decide the func‐\ntionality question; it determined that the patent evidence,\nwhile relevant to the question of functionality, posed too sig‐\nnificant a risk of jury confusion (an issue not raised by the pa‐\ntent evidence in Thomas & Betts).\n This is not one of those extreme cases in which we second‐\nguess the trial judge’s weighing of the probative value of the\nevidence with the potential for jury confusion on a Rule 403\n\f20 No. 18‐3020\n\nissue. We affirm the court’s denial of A Top’s motion for a\nnew trial.7\n III. Conclusion\n For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the\ndistrict court.\n\n\n\n\n 7In its opening brief, A Top cites to the standard of review for a mo‐\ntion for a new trial based on improper jury instructions. However, A Top\ndoes not develop an argument based on any problem with the court’s in‐\nstructions, and so we do not address this issue. See Ienco v. Angarone, 429\nF.3d 680, 685 (7th Cir. 2005).\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: BODUM USA, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. a TOP NEW CASTING INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellant.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-06-12\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18‐3020\\nBODUM USA, INCORPORATED,\\n Plaintiff‐Appellee,\\n v.\\n\\nA TOP NEW CASTING INCORPORATED,\\n Defendant‐Appellant.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 16‐cv‐02916 — Matthew F. Kennelly, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED MAY 30, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 12, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before FLAUM, MANION, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.\\n FLAUM, Circuit Judge. Bodum USA, Inc. (“Bodum”) pro‐\\nduces and sells what design magazines and art museums\\nhave recognized as an iconically designed houseware prod‐\\nuct—the Chambord French press coffeemaker. Bodum sued\\nA Top New Casting, Inc. (“A Top”) for selling a French press\\nthat Bodum claimed infringes on its unregistered trade dress\\nin the Chambord. After a five‐day trial, a jury returned a ver‐\\n\\f2 No. 18‐3020\\n\\ndict in favor of Bodum, finding that A Top had willfully in‐\\nfringed on Bodum’s trade dress in the Chambord and award‐\\ning Bodum $2 million in damages. The district court denied\\nA Top’s post‐trial motion for judgment as a matter of law, in\\nwhich A Top argued that Bodum failed to prove the Cham‐\\nbord design was nonfunctional. A Top also moved for a new\\ntrial because the court excluded evidence of various utility pa‐\\ntents covering French press coffeemakers; the district court\\ndenied this motion as well. We affirm.\\n I. Background\\n Plaintiff‐appellee Bodum has been selling French press\\ncoffeemakers since the 1970s. A French press is a nonelectric\\ncoffeemaker consisting of a cylindrical carafe and a plunger\\nattached to a filter screen. The user adds boiling water to cof‐\\nfee grounds in the carafe and, after the grounds have steeped,\\npresses the filter down slowly through the carafe to separate\\nthe used grounds from the brewed coffee.\\n Bodum began distributing the Chambord, its flagship\\nFrench press, in 1983. The Chambord’s design originated in\\nFrance in the 1930s and is based on the towers of the Cham‐\\nbord Chateau, a castle in France’s Loire Valley. Its features in‐\\nclude a metal cage with a band around the top of the carafe,\\nmetal pillars ending in four curved feet, a C‐shaped handle,\\nand a domed lid topped with a spherical knob. Bodum’s\\nChambord French press is pictured below:\\n\\fNo. 18‐3020 3\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Bodum acquired exclusive rights to distribute the Cham‐\\nbord in 1991 and has spent millions of dollars promoting it in\\nprint and television advertisements and at trade shows\\nworldwide. Bodum sells the Chambord in department stores,\\nat Starbucks coffee shops, and online, including through Am‐\\nazon. The Chambord design has been recognized as classic by\\nsuch institutions as Phaidon Design Classics and the Museum\\nof Modern Art. Bodum actively polices whatever it believes\\nto be infringement of this design; it has sent dozens of cease‐\\nand‐desist letters over the past twenty‐five years and has filed\\nlawsuits against alleged infringers when they did not stop\\nselling their products in response to Bodum’s requests.\\n In 2014, defendant‐appellant A Top began selling a com‐\\npeting French press coffeemaker called the SterlingPro exclu‐\\nsively through Amazon. The SterlingPro is similar in appear‐\\nance to the Chambord, with the same metal cage, metal pillars\\nending in curved feet, C‐shaped handle, and domed lid\\n\\f4 No. 18‐3020\\n\\ntopped with a spherical knob. The two coffeemakers are pic‐\\ntured side‐by‐side below, with the Chambord on the left and\\nthe SterlingPro on the right:\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Bodum filed a complaint against A Top in the Northern\\nDistrict of Illinois on March 7, 2016, bringing claims for trade\\ndress infringement under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.\\n§ 1125(a); common law unfair competition; and violation of\\nthe Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 815 Ill.\\nComp. Stat. § 510/1 et seq. According to Bodum’s complaint,\\nA Top intentionally adopted the overall appearance of the\\nChambord for its SterlingPro product, infringing on its unreg‐\\nistered trade dress in the design. A Top moved for summary\\njudgment on Bodum’s claims twice, but the district court de‐\\nnied these motions and the case proceeded to a jury trial on\\nMarch 28, 2018.\\n The jury returned a verdict in Bodum’s favor, finding that\\nA Top willfully infringed on Bodum’s Chambord trade dress\\nand awarding Bodum $2 million in damages. A Top timely\\nmoved for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of\\n\\fNo. 18‐3020 5\\n\\nCivil Procedure 50 and for a new trial under Rule 59. As rele‐\\nvant here, A Top claimed that it was entitled to judgment as a\\nmatter of law because Bodum had failed to prove its Cham‐\\nbord trade dress elements were nonfunctional. And A Top\\nsaid it was at least entitled to a new trial because the district\\ncourt erred in excluding evidence under Rule 403 of utility\\npatents that, it said, disclosed the Chambord’s trade dress fea‐\\ntures (demonstrating the functionality of those features). The\\ndistrict court denied both motions on June 6, 2018.\\n On August 21, 2018, the district court granted Bodum’s\\nmotion for enhanced damages, awarding prejudgment inter‐\\nest and doubling the damages award to $4 million, and it de‐\\nnied Bodum’s motion for attorney’s fees. Further, the court\\ngranted Bodum’s request for a permanent injunction to pre‐\\nvent A Top from continuing to sell its infringing SterlingPro\\nproducts. The district court entered final judgment on August\\n23, and A Top timely appealed.\\n II. Discussion\\n A Top pursues two arguments on appeal. First, A Top says\\nthat it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because\\nBodum did not meet its burden of demonstrating that the el‐\\nements of the claimed Chambord trade dress were nonfunc‐\\ntional (as required for it to be enforceable under the Lanham\\nAct). Second, A Top claims that it is entitled to a new trial be‐\\ncause the district court improperly excluded several utility\\npatents from evidence under Rule 403.\\n A. Functionality of the Chambord Trade Dress\\n We review de novo the denial of a Rule 50 motion for judg‐\\nment as a matter of law. Thorne v. Member Select Ins. Co., 882\\nF.3d 642, 644 (7th Cir. 2018). “Because a jury has rendered a\\n\\f6 No. 18‐3020\\n\\nverdict, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to\\nthat verdict.” Matthews v. Wis. Energy Corp., 642 F.3d 565, 567\\n(7th Cir. 2011). In our review, we do not make credibility de‐\\nterminations or reweigh the evidence; we need only deter‐\\nmine that there is more than “a mere scintilla of evidence” to\\nsupport the verdict. May v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 716 F.3d 963,\\n971 (7th Cir. 2013) (quoting Hossack v. Floor Covering Assoc. of\\nJoliet, Inc., 492 F.3d 853, 859 (7th Cir. 2007)). “In other words,\\nour job is to decide whether a highly charitable assessment of\\nthe evidence supports the jury’s verdict or if, instead, the jury\\nwas irrational to reach its conclusion.” Id.\\n The Lanham Act permits a civil action against any person\\nwho uses “any word, term, name, symbol, or device” “in con‐\\nnection with any goods or services” in a manner which “is\\nlikely to cause confusion” as to the source of those goods or\\nservices. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A). The Act’s protection ex‐\\ntends to a product’s trade dress, which includes a product de‐\\nsign that is so distinctive it identifies the product’s source. Ar‐\\nlington Specialties, Inc. v. Urban Aid, Inc., 847 F.3d 415, 418 (7th\\nCir. 2017); see also TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Mktg. Displays, Inc.,\\n532 U.S. 23, 28 (2001) (“The design or packaging of a product\\nmay acquire a distinctiveness which serves to identify the\\nproduct with its manufacturer or source; and a design or\\npackage which acquires this secondary meaning … is a trade\\ndress[.]”). As with any other trademark, infringement of a\\nproduct’s trade dress is actionable under the Act. Arlington\\nSpecialties, 847 F.3d at 418.\\n At trial, Bodum was required to prove a number of ele‐\\nments for the jury to find trade dress infringement—that it\\nowns a valid trade dress in the Chambord design, that the\\ntrade dress is not functional, and that A Top’s SterlingPro was\\n\\fNo. 18‐3020 7\\n\\nlikely to cause consumer confusion as to its source. See id. On\\nappeal, A Top does not dispute that the SterlingPro copies the\\nChambord. Instead, A Top only challenges Bodum’s proof on\\nthe functionality of its claimed trade dress.1\\n Trademark protection for trade dress, unlike patent and\\ncopyright protection, has no time limit; the Act therefore does\\nnot protect features that are necessary for the use of a product,\\nso as to prevent one competitor from maintaining a “perpet‐\\nual and exclusive right to a useful product feature.” Id. (citing\\nQualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co., 514 U.S. 159, 165 (1995)). The\\nSupreme Court has explained that “‘a product feature is func‐\\ntional,’ and cannot serve as a trademark, ‘if it is essential to\\nthe use or purpose of the article or if it affects the cost or qual‐\\nity of the article.’” Qualitex, 514 U.S. at 165 (quoting Inwood\\nLabs., Inc. v. Ives Labs., Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 850 n.10 (1982)). Even\\nif a claimed trade dress does not satisfy this first test, “it can\\nstill be functional if it is a ‘competitive necessity,’ that is, if its\\nexclusive use ‘would put competitors at a significant non‐rep‐\\nutation‐related disadvantage.’” Arlington Specialties, 847 F.3d\\nat 419 (quoting TrafFix Devices, 532 U.S. at 32–33)); see also Spe‐\\ncialized Seating, Inc. v. Greenwich Indus., LP, 616 F.3d 722, 727\\n(7th Cir. 2010) (a design is functional where a product “looks\\nthe way it does in order to be a better [product], not in order\\nto be a better way of identifying who made it”). Where, as\\nhere, the claimed trade dress is unregistered, it is the burden\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 1 In fact, at oral argument, A Top confirmed that it was not arguing\\nthat the SterlingPro did not copy the Chambord, but it instead argued that\\nit “had a right to copy, right down to the last bolt,” because Bodum did\\nnot have a valid trade dress in the Chambord.\\n\\f8 No. 18‐3020\\n\\nof the party asserting protection to prove that the trade dress\\nis not functional. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(3).\\n In deciding whether a trade dress element is functional,\\nwe consider several factors:\\n (1) the existence of a utility patent, expired or\\n unexpired, that involves or describes the func‐\\n tionality of an item’s design element; (2) the util‐\\n itarian properties of the item’s unpatented de‐\\n sign elements; (3) advertising of the item that\\n touts the utilitarian advantages of the item’s de‐\\n sign elements; (4) the dearth of, or difficulty in\\n creating, alternative designs for the item’s pur‐\\n pose; (5) the effect of the design feature on an\\n item’s quality or cost.\\nGa.–Pac. Consumer Prods. LP v. Kimberly–Clark Corp., 647 F.3d\\n723, 727–28 (7th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). No one factor is\\ndispositive. See id. at 728–31 (considering each factor sepa‐\\nrately to determine whether it weighs in favor of or against\\nfunctionality); Valu Eng’g, Inc. v. Rexnord Corp., 278 F.3d 1268,\\n1274–75 (Fed. Cir. 2002).\\n Bodum claims trade dress protection in the overall ap‐\\npearance of the Chambord and identifies the following spe‐\\ncific elements as contributing to that distinctive look: the\\nmetal band surrounding the carafe that forms support feet\\nand the handle attachment, the domed lid, the rounded knob\\natop the plunger, and the C‐shaped handle. See Comput. Care\\nv. Serv. Sys. Enters., Inc., 982 F.2d 1063, 1071 (7th Cir. 1992)\\n(where plaintiff seeks to protect overall appearance of its\\ntrade dress, focus of analysis is on that total appearance rather\\nthan individual design elements in isolation). Bodum does\\n\\fNo. 18‐3020 9\\n\\nnot claim a trade dress in the cylindrical carafe or the plunger,\\nas it acknowledges those elements are functional for a French\\npress coffeemaker.\\n A Top argues Bodum failed to establish that the claimed\\nChambord features are not essential to its use and that these\\nfeatures do not affect the coffeemaker’s cost or quality. How‐\\never, in its argument, A Top consistently elides the distinction\\nbetween a product’s “function” in the everyday meaning of\\nthe term and “functional” as a term of art used in trade dress\\nlaw. Bodum does not claim that any French press coffeemaker\\nwith a handle, a domed top, or metal around the carafe in‐\\nfringes on its trade dress. Rather, it is the overall appearance\\nof A Top’s SterlingPro, which has the same shaped handle, the\\nsame domed lid, the same shaped feet, the same rounded knob,\\nand the same shaped metal frame as the Chambord, that\\nBodum objects to. Thus, to establish it has a valid trade dress,\\nBodum did not have to prove that something like a handle\\ndoes not serve any function. It merely needed to prove that\\npreventing competitors from copying the Chambord’s partic‐\\nular design would not significantly disadvantage them from\\nproducing a competitive and cost‐efficient French press cof‐\\nfeemaker. See Arlington Specialties, 847 F.3d at 419.\\n When properly framed in this manner, Bodum presented\\nsufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that the\\nChambord’s overall look was nonfunctional. First, regarding\\nthe utilitarian properties of the Chambord’s design elements,\\nsee Ga.–Pac. Consumer Prods., 647 F.3d at 728, Bodum’s func‐\\ntionality expert Robert Anders testified about their nonutili‐\\ntarian nature. He testified that the only functional parts of the\\nChambord—the parts that are necessary to make French press\\ncoffee—are the plunger and cylindrical shape of the carafe. In\\n\\f10 No. 18‐3020\\n\\ncontrast, Mr. Anders did not believe the particular C‐shape of\\nthe Chambord’s handle worked better than an alternatively\\nshaped handle and, in fact, testified that he thought the C‐\\nshape was “not as ergonomically designed as it could be.” Mr.\\nAnders further testified that the dome‐shaped lid was an “ar‐\\nbitrary design” because the lid “could be of any shape” in or‐\\nder to work, and the metal frame is “absolutely not” necessary\\nfor the Chambord to make French press coffee.\\n A Top’s expert, Peter Bressler, agreed. He “didn’t see par‐\\nticularly great advantage in the design of the handle, but [he]\\nsaw an advantage in having a handle.” Whether it is more ad‐\\nvantageous for a French press to have a handle, however, is\\nnot the pertinent inquiry; the question is whether there is an\\nadvantage to having this designed handle, to which Mr. Bressler\\nagreed there is not. The same is true of the feet: Mr. Bressler\\ntestified he “didn’t see a particular advantage in the design of\\nthe feet, but [ ] saw the fact that it had feet, which, to [him],\\nwas a utilitarian advantage.” Again, this does not speak to\\nany advantages of the design of the feet. Overall, Mr. Bressler\\ntestified that “[t]he utilitarian advantages … are not that\\nclear.” This evidence weighs in favor of nonfunctionality be‐\\ncause it supports that the claimed Chambord features are\\n“merely ornamental” and are not necessary to make the\\nChambord work better as a French press coffeemaker. Arling‐\\nton Specialties, 847 F.3d at 420 (citation omitted).2\\n\\n\\n 2A Top points to two changes Bodum made to the Chambord in re‐\\nsponse to safety issues the United States Consumer Product Safety Com‐\\nmission raised—reducing the size of the knob and redesigning the lid to\\nfit deeper into the carafe—as evidence the knob and lid are functional.\\nHowever, Bodum could have reduced the size of the knob and made it a\\nflat disk or redesigned the deep‐fitting lid to be flat instead of domed\\n\\fNo. 18‐3020 11\\n\\n Next, A Top argues that Bodum admitted the Chambord\\ndesign was functional in its advertising and thus failed to\\nmeet its burden of proving nonfunctionality. See Ga.–Pac. Con‐\\nsumer Prods., 647 F.3d at 730 (advertising that touts the de‐\\nsign’s “utilitarian advantages” can weigh in favor of function‐\\nality). Indeed, Joergen Bodum, CEO of Bodum’s parent com‐\\npany, testified regarding Chambord advertisements describ‐\\ning the product as “functional” and about an interview he\\ngave in which he described Bodum’s products as “function‐\\ndriven.” However, he also explained that these references to\\nfunctionality were not invoking the term’s legal definition but\\nwere merely intended to convey that Bodum’s products work.\\nIn fact, Bodum’s advertising for the Chambord never claimed\\nany of its design features worked better than other options—\\nfor example, it never claimed the handle is an ergonomic\\nshape nor that its four curved feet provide stability. Rather,\\nthe advertising focused on the classic look of the Chambord\\ndesign. Thus, a reasonable jury could weigh this evidence\\nagainst a finding of functionality in the legal trade dress\\nsense.\\n Additionally, Bodum introduced a plethora of evidence\\nregarding the availability of alternative designs, which sup‐\\nported the Chambord’s lack of functionality. Id. It introduced\\nas trial exhibits competing manufacturers’ French presses fea‐\\nturing different design elements, including those made of dif‐\\nferent materials, with differently shaped handles, lids,\\nplunger knobs, and frames, those that do not have transpar‐\\nent carafes or do not have feet, and those with differently\\n\\nwhile still remedying these safety concerns. There is no evidence that the\\nappearance of the features as redesigned are necessary for a competitive\\nproduct, from a use (or cost) perspective.\\n\\f12 No. 18‐3020\\n\\nshaped external structures surrounding the cylindrical carafe.\\nSee Appellee Br. at 4 (pictures of alternatively designed\\nFrench presses introduced as trial exhibits). More im‐\\nportantly, Bodum introduced evidence that both it and A Top\\nsell French presses with alternative designs and made of dif‐\\nferent materials. Thus, there was ample evidence before the\\njury in Bodum’s favor on this factor.\\n Finally, we must consider the cost or quality advantage\\ntest of functionality. See TrafFix Devices, 532 U.S. at 32; see also\\nGa.–Pac. Consumer Prods., 647 F.3d at 731. Again, Bodum pre‐\\nsented sufficient evidence from which a jury could conclude\\nthat the Chambord’s design conferred no cost or quality ad‐\\nvantage that made it functional. Bodum’s expert, Mr. Anders,\\ntestified the Chambord design was “complex” and that there\\nare “simpler ways of doing this.” He explained the more com‐\\nplex the structure, the more expensive the product is to man‐\\nufacture, so he disagreed with A Top’s expert that the Cham‐\\nbord was the least expensive method to manufacture a French\\npress. Mr. Anders also explained that plastic is generally\\ncheaper to use than metal in manufacturing, so plastic‐framed\\nFrench presses would be cheaper to manufacture than the\\nmetal‐framed Chambord.\\n Joergen Bodum further supported Mr. Anders’s opinion\\nin his testimony regarding the many different French presses\\nBodum produces. For example, Bodum’s “Bistro” French\\npress does not have a metal frame, a domed lid, or a C‐shaped\\nhandle. Mr. Bodum testified that the Bistro is less expensive\\nto produce (“maybe less than half of what it costs to make a\\nChambord”) and less time‐consuming to produce because it\\nrequires less material than the Chambord. Although the Bis‐\\ntro was a successful first product for the company, Mr.\\n\\fNo. 18‐3020 13\\n\\nBodum testified he decided to produce the Chambord, a more\\ncomplex and expensive product, in addition to the Bistro be‐\\ncause he was interested in its iconic French design. Mr.\\nBodum also discussed the manufacturing costs to produce\\nBodum’s various French press coffeemakers. He explained\\nthat the Chambord is neither the cheapest nor the most expen‐\\nsive French press Bodum sells.3 Thus, Mr. Bodum’s testimony\\nsupported that the Chambord’s overall design conferred no\\nparticular cost advantage that made it functional.4\\n\\n 3 A Top repeatedly states in its brief that Mr. Bodum testified the\\nChambord provides a cost advantage. The trial testimony A Top cites for\\nthe proposition, however, does not support this assertion. Though Mr.\\nBodum did answer affirmatively that the Chambord design “gives a cost\\nadvantage in manufacturing over other types of French presses,” it is\\nabundantly clear from the surrounding answers that Mr. Bodum\\nmisspoke in answering this question. Immediately before this answer, Mr.\\nBodum explained that the Chambord is “one of the most expensive” cof‐\\nfeemakers to manufacture, and immediately after, Mr. Bodum confirmed\\nthat the Chambord’s design does not “result from the fact that it was so\\ninexpensive to manufacture.” A Top’s efforts to take Mr. Bodum’s mis‐\\nstatement as an admission are therefore unavailing.\\n 4 A Top relies on Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 786 F.3d 983\\n(Fed. Cir. 2015), rev’d and remanded on other grounds, 137 S. Ct. 429 (2016),\\nto argue that Bodum’s evidence regarding the relative costs of the materials\\nused to make the Chambord is irrelevant and, therefore, that Bodum in‐\\ntroduced nothing to show the Chambord is nonfunctional under the cost\\nadvantage test. Apple, a Federal Circuit case applying Ninth Circuit law,\\nis not controlling here, but in any event, it is distinguishable. In Apple, the\\nplaintiff argued that its unregistered trade dress in its product did not re‐\\nsult from a comparatively simple manufacturing process. Id. at 994. The\\nFederal Circuit, however, noted that the difficulties plaintiff encountered\\nin its manufacturing process resulted from its choice to use certain mate‐\\nrials to improve the durability (i.e., the function) of its product. Id. Thus,\\nthis evidence did not address any cost advantages or disadvantages of\\nplaintiff’s design. Id. Here, however, Bodum introduced evidence that\\n\\f14 No. 18‐3020\\n\\n Indeed, Jian Liang, A Top’s CEO, testified that A Top pro‐\\nduces another French press with a plastic frame that is less\\nexpensive than the metal SterlingPro. This testimony further\\ndemonstrates that the Chambord’s design does not provide a\\ncost advantage. Contrary to A Top’s argument, Bodum pro‐\\nvided evidence sufficient for the jury to conclude that the\\nChambord’s appearance is costlier to manufacture than to de‐\\nsign around, which supports that the Chambord trade dress\\nis not functional. See Thomas & Betts Corp. v. Panduit Corp., 138\\nF.3d 277, 297–98 (7th Cir. 1998).\\n Overall, looking at the evidence in the light most favorable\\nto the verdict, Bodum presented sufficient evidence for the\\njury to have found Bodum’s claimed trade dress was non‐\\nfunctional. We cannot say the jury was irrational to reach this\\nconclusion, so we affirm the denial of A Top’s motion for\\njudgment as a matter of law.\\n B. Exclusion of Utility Patents Evidence\\n A Top also appeals a related issue—the district court’s de‐\\ncision to exclude evidence of various utility patents, which\\nA Top contends demonstrate the functionality of the claimed\\nChambord trade dress features. A district court may exclude\\nrelevant evidence where its probative value is substantially\\noutweighed by, for example, a risk of unfair prejudice or con‐\\nfusing the issues. Fed. R. Evid. 403. We review evidentiary\\nrulings for abuse of discretion and will reverse “only if no rea‐\\nsonable person would agree with the district court’s view.”\\n\\n\\n\\nFrench presses can still function when made out of other materials, like\\nplastic, and that the metal and glass used for the Chambord design do not\\nconfer any particular cost or quality advantage for the product.\\n\\fNo. 18‐3020 15\\n\\nUnited States v. Proano, 912 F.3d 431, 438 (7th Cir. 2019). Fur‐\\nthermore, we accord Rule 403 determinations “‘special defer‐\\nence,’ because only ‘in an extreme case are appellate judges\\ncompetent to second‐guess the judgment of the person on the\\nspot, the trial judge.’” Id. at 440 (quoting United States v. Jack‐\\nson, 898 F.3d 760, 764 (7th Cir. 2018)).\\n As noted above, courts consider “the existence of a utility\\npatent, expired or unexpired, that involves or describes the\\nfunctionality of an item’s design element” in considering\\nwhether a claimed trade dress is functional. Ga.–Pac. Con‐\\nsumer Prods., 647 F.3d at 727–28.5 As the Supreme Court has\\nexplained, a utility patent is “strong evidence that the features\\ntherein claimed are functional.” TrafFix Devices, 532 U.S. at 29.\\nIn other words, “if the ‘central advance’ claimed in the utility\\npatent matches the ‘essential feature’ of the trademark, there\\nis strong evidence that the design is functional.” Ga.–Pac. Con‐\\nsumer Prods., 647 F.3d at 728 (quoting TrafFix Devices, 532 U.S.\\nat 30).\\n Evidence of utility patents came up during Mr. Anders’s\\nexamination. On direct examination, Bodum asked Mr. An‐\\nders a total of seven questions about utility patents and\\nshowed him one patent that A Top’s expert had cited in his\\nreport. Mr. Anders testified that, though a utility patent\\nclaiming a feature is evidence that this feature is functional in\\nthe trade dress sense, he did not find any utility patents cov‐\\nering the Chambord trade dress features. He believed the pa‐\\n\\n\\n\\n 5 A utility patent covers “any new and useful process, machine, man‐\\nufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement\\nthereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.\\n\\f16 No. 18‐3020\\n\\ntent A Top’s expert cited only disclosed the plunger rod en‐\\ngaging with the cylindrical walls of the carafe, which Mr. An‐\\nders explained is a feature in all French presses and has no\\nbearing on the Chambord trade dress.\\n On cross examination, A Top asked Mr. Anders many ad‐\\nditional questions about patents and showed him approxi‐\\nmately ten utility patents. A Top questioned Mr. Anders\\nabout whether the patents disclosed the same elements\\nBodum claims as part of the Chambord trade dress—a domed\\nlid, a handle, and a circular knob atop the plunger. However,\\ncounsel only provided Mr. Anders with the pictures from the\\npatents, not the portion of the patents explaining the claims.\\nMr. Anders testified that he believed utility patents describe\\nthe claims in words, not in the illustrations, so he would not\\nagree the patents disclosed any elements of the Chambord\\ntrade dress based solely on a review of the pictures.\\n Bodum’s counsel objected to the admission of the patents\\nas evidence. The court provisionally admitted the patents for\\nBodum’s redirect examination of Mr. Anders and then heard\\narguments on the objection at the next break in the trial.\\nBodum argued the patents A Top sought to have admitted\\nwere irrelevant because they were not patents for any Bodum\\nor A Top product and were not patents of identical designs.\\nBodum also argued the proposed exhibits were incomplete as\\nthey were only a portion of the patents. The district court re‐\\nquested briefing on the issue of whether utility patents for\\nsimilar but not identical products are relevant to the question\\nof functionality and requested complete copies of each patent.\\n After reviewing the parties’ arguments and the entire pa‐\\ntents, the district court excluded them from evidence. The\\ncourt explained it did not matter that the patents were for\\n\\fNo. 18‐3020 17\\n\\nother parties’ products but it did matter whether the features\\nBodum claimed as part of its trade dress were disclosed in the\\npatents. The court asked A Top to point to language in any of\\nthe patents it sought to admit that claimed as part of the pa‐\\ntent “any of the features that [Bodum] says are part of its trade\\ndress.” A Top could not, however, find any such language.\\nThough it continued to insist the patents described knobs and\\ndomed lids, it could not point to any language in the patents\\nto support this contention. The patent A Top claimed “most\\nilluminating” described: “The system of Claim 1 or the cover\\nmeans comprising removable cover for the drinking vessel\\nadapted to fit over the top of the vessel, having an opening\\nthrough which the push rod extends the sliding movement\\nrelative to the cover.”6 But A Top was unable to point to a\\nsingle patent that claimed a domed lid, a C‐shaped handle, feet\\non the bottom of the carafe, or a metallic castle‐shaped cage—\\nthe design elements Bodum claims as its trade dress.\\n The district court reviewed the jury instruction on\\nwhether a patent discloses the “practical advantages” of the\\ndesign and explained that TrafFix Devices requires that the pa‐\\ntent somewhere (not necessarily in the claims portion of the\\npatent) claim the trade dress features in some “significant\\nway.” Here, none of the patents did so. Though some of the\\nFrench presses in the patent pictures had a handle, feet, or\\nsomething on top of the plunger, the court did not think that\\n“bears on the question of whether it’s functional as … trade\\ndress law defines that term.” The court elaborated:\\n\\n\\n\\n 6 During argument on the objection, A Top described this as the Banks\\n\\npatent, 5,618,570, which does not appear to be in the record and is not\\nmentioned in either party’s appellate briefs.\\n\\f18 No. 18‐3020\\n\\n [T]here is a massive potential for jury confusion\\n here if these things are used in the way, frankly,\\n that they were used during the cross‐examina‐\\n tion of the [ ] expert. You put a picture up there,\\n that’s got a handle, it’s got a knob, it’s got a\\n plunger, it’s cylindrical like yours, that’s not\\n what the inquiry is. The inquiry isn’t whether\\n somebody has drawn this picture before. The\\n inquiry is whether … the features are claimed in\\n a patent in a way that shows that they have\\n some sort of a function.\\n The court then concluded: “I don’t think it’s relevant. If it’s\\nrelevant, it has teeny teeny probative value, massive potential\\nfor jury confusion. It’s excluded under Rule 403.” The court\\ndid not permit A Top to use the patent evidence with its ex‐\\npert and gave the jury a curative instruction: “During the\\ncross‐examination of witness Robert Anders, he was shown\\ncertain pages from certain patents. I have excluded those pa‐\\ntents from the evidence in this case. You are not to consider\\nthem for any purpose.”\\n The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding\\nthis evidence. The patents A Top sought to introduce do not\\nclaim any of the features that comprise the claimed Cham‐\\nbord trade dress. See TrafFix Devices, 532 U.S. at 29 (utility pa‐\\ntents are evidence “that the features therein claimed are func‐\\ntional” (emphasis added)). That the patents disclose a plunger\\nand cylindrical carafe are irrelevant because Bodum does not\\nclaim those elements as part of its trade dress. And the pic‐\\ntures in the patents showing French presses with handles,\\ndomed lids, or knobs are irrelevant to the legal question of\\nfunctionality because the patents do not claim any of those\\n\\fNo. 18‐3020 19\\n\\nfeatures as part of the patented invention. Permitting the jury\\nto view and consider the patents would cause confusion as to\\nthe appropriate inquiry for functionality.\\n A Top also claims that whether a patent discloses a fea‐\\nture’s utility is a question of fact for the jury and, as such, the\\ndistrict court erred in excluding the patents from the jury’s\\nconsideration. In Thomas & Betts, we explained that a “utility\\npatent must be examined in detail to determine whether or\\nnot the disclosed configuration is really primarily functional\\nor just incidentally appears in the disclosure of a patent.” 138\\nF.3d at 300 (quoting J. Thomas McCarthy, 1 McCarthy on\\nTrademarks and Unfair Competition § 6:10 (4th ed. 1996)).\\nThere, the district court determined at summary judgment\\nthat because the claimed feature was part of a patent and did\\nnot appear incidentally, it was primarily a functional feature.\\nId. On appeal, we determined that this conclusion “necessi‐\\ntated a weighing of the evidence,” so a jury should have had\\nthe opportunity to decide how much weight to give the patent\\nconsidering all the other evidence presented on the function‐\\nality issue. Id. The district court’s decision here is consistent\\nwith Thomas & Betts. The court excluded the evidence under\\nRule 403, an evidentiary rule that tasks the judge with balanc‐\\ning the exclusion of relevant evidence with the risk of harm\\nfrom admission. The district court did not decide the func‐\\ntionality question; it determined that the patent evidence,\\nwhile relevant to the question of functionality, posed too sig‐\\nnificant a risk of jury confusion (an issue not raised by the pa‐\\ntent evidence in Thomas & Betts).\\n This is not one of those extreme cases in which we second‐\\nguess the trial judge’s weighing of the probative value of the\\nevidence with the potential for jury confusion on a Rule 403\\n\\f20 No. 18‐3020\\n\\nissue. We affirm the court’s denial of A Top’s motion for a\\nnew trial.7\\n III. Conclusion\\n For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the\\ndistrict court.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 7In its opening brief, A Top cites to the standard of review for a mo‐\\ntion for a new trial based on improper jury instructions. However, A Top\\ndoes not develop an argument based on any problem with the court’s in‐\\nstructions, and so we do not address this issue. See Ienco v. Angarone, 429\\nF.3d 680, 685 (7th Cir. 2005).\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2572,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4628922,"string":"4,628,922"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. David Tjader"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-06-12"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-2447"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before KANNE, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"ST. EVE, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18‐2447\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff‐Appellee,\\n v.\\n\\nDAVID TJADER,\\n Defendant‐Appellant.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Western District of Wisconsin.\\n No. 3:17CR00100‐001 — William M. Conley, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED APRIL 24, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 12, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before KANNE, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.\\n ST. EVE, Circuit Judge. In this appeal, David Tjader chal‐\\nlenges several conditions of his supervised release on\\ngrounds he did not raise in the district court. Because he\\nwaived these challenges, we affirm.\\n Tjader purchased child pornography online from sellers in\\nthe Philippines. He asked one seller about recordings of girls\\n\\f2 No. 18‐2447\\n\\nunder 14 years old being tortured, raped, or killed. His con‐\\nduct involved over 250 different pornographic images and\\nvideos of prepubescent girls. Tjader pleaded guilty to one\\ncount of receiving child pornography. See 18 U.S.C.\\n§ 2252(a)(2),(b)(1).\\n A United States probation officer prepared a presentence\\ninvestigation report and a supervision plan. Tjader received a\\ncopy of this plan and confirmed with the district court that,\\nbefore sentencing, he reviewed and understood it. As part of\\nthe plan, the probation officer proposed the following\\nsupervised‐release terms—terms that Tjader now challenges\\non appeal:\\n Condition 1: Defendant shall not leave the judicial\\n district in which defendant is being supervised without the\\n permission of the Court or probation officer.\\n Condition 2: Defendant … shall … follow the [pro‐\\n bation] officer’s instructions … .\\n Condition 11: As directed by the probation officer,\\n defendant shall notify third parties of risks that may be oc‐\\n casioned by defendant’s criminal record or personal history\\n or characteristics … .\\n Condition 12: Provide the supervising U.S. proba‐\\n tion officer any and all requested financial information, in‐\\n cluding copies of state and federal tax returns.\\n Condition 16: As approved by the supervising U.S.\\n Probation Officer, undergo psychosexual evaluations,\\n which may involve use of polygraph examinations. Defend‐\\n ant shall participate in an outpatient sex offender counsel‐\\n ing program if recommended by the evaluator, … .\\n Condition 17: Not meet or spend time with any per‐\\n son under the age of 18 or have verbal, written, telephonic\\n\\fNo. 18‐2447 3\\n\\n or electronic communication with any such person … . This\\n provision does not include persons under the age of 18, such\\n as waiters, cashiers, ticket vendors, etc., with whom defend‐\\n ant must deal in order to obtain ordinary and usual com‐\\n mercial services.\\n Condition 18: Not work in any occupation, business\\n or profession, or participate in any volunteer activity where\\n he has access to children under the age of 18 without the\\n prior approval of the supervising U.S. probation officer.\\n Tjader initially objected to only two of these conditions rel‐\\nevant to this appeal. First, he argued that Condition 12 (re‐\\nquiring that he provide financial information upon request)\\nwas an “excessive intrusion” and “not rationally designed to\\nsupervise him” because his crime was not financial in nature.\\nSecond, he argued that Condition 16 (requiring psychosexual\\nevaluation and potentially counseling) was impermissible to\\nthe extent that it authorized Abel Screening and plethysmo‐\\ngraph examinations (tests that measure sexual interest) and\\npolygraph tests because those tests, he said, must be shown\\nto be reliable under Daubert before they could be used. (Tjader\\nobjected to other conditions as well, but he does not challenge\\nthem on appeal.)\\n The court addressed Tjader’s objections in detail, over‐\\nruled them, and adopted the proposed conditions. The court\\nthen asked Tjader whether it should read and justify the re‐\\nmaining conditions or adopt the supervision plan’s recitation\\nof them and their explanations. Tjader responded that he\\n“waive[d] the reading of any justification of the additional\\nconditions that [he] did not object to.” He also acknowledged\\nthat he reviewed the conditions with counsel and that he un‐\\nderstood them and their justifications. The court sentenced\\n\\f4 No. 18‐2447\\n\\nTjader to seven years in prison and ten years of supervised\\nrelease, and it ordered him to pay restitution.\\n On appeal, Tjader again challenges Condition 12 (the\\nfinancial‐monitoring condition) and Condition 16 (the\\nevaluation and treatment condition), but he does so on new\\ngrounds. For Condition 12, rather than argue as he did in the\\ndistrict court that it is unduly burdensome, he now asserts\\nthat the district court gave inadequate reasons for imposing\\nit. For Condition 16, he now primarily argues that the court\\nimpermissibly delegated its authority to non‐judicial actors.\\nHe also contests other conditions for the first time.\\n We review preserved arguments for abuse of discretion\\nand forfeited ones for plain error. See United States v. Bickart,\\n825 F.3d 832, 839 (7th Cir. 2016). Waived arguments—those\\nthat are intentionally relinquished—we cannot review at all.\\nSee United States v. Bloch, 825 F.3d 862, 873 (7th Cir. 2016).\\n Tjader waived all of his appellate arguments against the\\nsupervisory conditions. When a defendant has received ad‐\\nvanced notice of conditions of supervised release and is in‐\\nvited to object to them in the district court, a “failure to object\\n… can amount to waiver.” United States v. Gabriel, 831 F.3d\\n811, 814 (7th Cir. 2016); see also United States v. Raney, 842 F.3d\\n1041, 1044 (7th Cir. 2016). Tjader had advanced notice of the\\nconditions because they were in the supervision plan, which\\nhe received before sentencing. See United States v. Gumila, 879\\nF.3d 831, 838 (7th Cir. 2018); United States v. Lewis, 823 F.3d\\n1075, 1082 (7th Cir. 2016). The district court also confirmed\\nthat Tjader had time to review them and that he understood\\nthem. See Gumila, 879 F.3d at 838; Bloch, 825 F.3d at 873. And\\nbefore sentencing, when the district court invited Tjader to\\npresent his objections to the conditions, Tjader raised some\\n\\fNo. 18‐2447 5\\n\\nobjections (not raised on appeal), but not others. We may infer\\nfrom his choice to raise these other objections that his decision\\nnot to raise the ones he now advances on appeal was strategic\\nand intentional. See Gumila, 879 F.3d at 838; United States v.\\nRanjel, 872 F.3d 815, 821–22 (7th Cir. 2017). Tjader’s decision\\nto waive an explanation of the remaining conditions—noting\\nthat he understood those conditions and their justifications—\\nconfirmed his intent. See Lewis, 823 F.3d at 1083. This conduct\\nresulted in a waiver of Tjader’s appellate challenges.1\\n Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 1 Tjader argues, and the government agrees, that the mandate to no‐\\ntify “third parties” of “the risks” that his “history” and “characteristics”\\npose is vague. Tjader’s waiver of this point is dispositive. See Raney, 842\\nF.3d at 1044. We do, however, note that Tjader may later seek modification\\nof this condition. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); United States v. Williams, 840 F.3d\\n865 (7th Cir. 2016) (per curiam). As the district court informed Tjader at\\nsentencing, he can ask the court to modify his conditions after he is re‐\\nleased to the extent such modifications are appropriate.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4406175/\", \"author_raw\": \"ST. EVE, Circuit Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"KANNE"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"HAMILTON"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"ST EVE"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"KANNE\": \", Circuit\", \"HAMILTON\": \", Circuit\", \"ST EVE\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4628922/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":6,"string":"6"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: United States v. David Tjader\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-06-12\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18‐2447\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n Plaintiff‐Appellee,\n v.\n\nDAVID TJADER,\n Defendant‐Appellant.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Western District of Wisconsin.\n No. 3:17CR00100‐001 — William M. Conley, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED APRIL 24, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 12, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before KANNE, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.\n ST. EVE, Circuit Judge. In this appeal, David Tjader chal‐\nlenges several conditions of his supervised release on\ngrounds he did not raise in the district court. Because he\nwaived these challenges, we affirm.\n Tjader purchased child pornography online from sellers in\nthe Philippines. He asked one seller about recordings of girls\n\f2 No. 18‐2447\n\nunder 14 years old being tortured, raped, or killed. His con‐\nduct involved over 250 different pornographic images and\nvideos of prepubescent girls. Tjader pleaded guilty to one\ncount of receiving child pornography. See 18 U.S.C.\n§ 2252(a)(2),(b)(1).\n A United States probation officer prepared a presentence\ninvestigation report and a supervision plan. Tjader received a\ncopy of this plan and confirmed with the district court that,\nbefore sentencing, he reviewed and understood it. As part of\nthe plan, the probation officer proposed the following\nsupervised‐release terms—terms that Tjader now challenges\non appeal:\n Condition 1: Defendant shall not leave the judicial\n district in which defendant is being supervised without the\n permission of the Court or probation officer.\n Condition 2: Defendant … shall … follow the [pro‐\n bation] officer’s instructions … .\n Condition 11: As directed by the probation officer,\n defendant shall notify third parties of risks that may be oc‐\n casioned by defendant’s criminal record or personal history\n or characteristics … .\n Condition 12: Provide the supervising U.S. proba‐\n tion officer any and all requested financial information, in‐\n cluding copies of state and federal tax returns.\n Condition 16: As approved by the supervising U.S.\n Probation Officer, undergo psychosexual evaluations,\n which may involve use of polygraph examinations. Defend‐\n ant shall participate in an outpatient sex offender counsel‐\n ing program if recommended by the evaluator, … .\n Condition 17: Not meet or spend time with any per‐\n son under the age of 18 or have verbal, written, telephonic\n\fNo. 18‐2447 3\n\n or electronic communication with any such person … . This\n provision does not include persons under the age of 18, such\n as waiters, cashiers, ticket vendors, etc., with whom defend‐\n ant must deal in order to obtain ordinary and usual com‐\n mercial services.\n Condition 18: Not work in any occupation, business\n or profession, or participate in any volunteer activity where\n he has access to children under the age of 18 without the\n prior approval of the supervising U.S. probation officer.\n Tjader initially objected to only two of these conditions rel‐\nevant to this appeal. First, he argued that Condition 12 (re‐\nquiring that he provide financial information upon request)\nwas an “excessive intrusion” and “not rationally designed to\nsupervise him” because his crime was not financial in nature.\nSecond, he argued that Condition 16 (requiring psychosexual\nevaluation and potentially counseling) was impermissible to\nthe extent that it authorized Abel Screening and plethysmo‐\ngraph examinations (tests that measure sexual interest) and\npolygraph tests because those tests, he said, must be shown\nto be reliable under Daubert before they could be used. (Tjader\nobjected to other conditions as well, but he does not challenge\nthem on appeal.)\n The court addressed Tjader’s objections in detail, over‐\nruled them, and adopted the proposed conditions. The court\nthen asked Tjader whether it should read and justify the re‐\nmaining conditions or adopt the supervision plan’s recitation\nof them and their explanations. Tjader responded that he\n“waive[d] the reading of any justification of the additional\nconditions that [he] did not object to.” He also acknowledged\nthat he reviewed the conditions with counsel and that he un‐\nderstood them and their justifications. The court sentenced\n\f4 No. 18‐2447\n\nTjader to seven years in prison and ten years of supervised\nrelease, and it ordered him to pay restitution.\n On appeal, Tjader again challenges Condition 12 (the\nfinancial‐monitoring condition) and Condition 16 (the\nevaluation and treatment condition), but he does so on new\ngrounds. For Condition 12, rather than argue as he did in the\ndistrict court that it is unduly burdensome, he now asserts\nthat the district court gave inadequate reasons for imposing\nit. For Condition 16, he now primarily argues that the court\nimpermissibly delegated its authority to non‐judicial actors.\nHe also contests other conditions for the first time.\n We review preserved arguments for abuse of discretion\nand forfeited ones for plain error. See United States v. Bickart,\n825 F.3d 832, 839 (7th Cir. 2016). Waived arguments—those\nthat are intentionally relinquished—we cannot review at all.\nSee United States v. Bloch, 825 F.3d 862, 873 (7th Cir. 2016).\n Tjader waived all of his appellate arguments against the\nsupervisory conditions. When a defendant has received ad‐\nvanced notice of conditions of supervised release and is in‐\nvited to object to them in the district court, a “failure to object\n… can amount to waiver.” United States v. Gabriel, 831 F.3d\n811, 814 (7th Cir. 2016); see also United States v. Raney, 842 F.3d\n1041, 1044 (7th Cir. 2016). Tjader had advanced notice of the\nconditions because they were in the supervision plan, which\nhe received before sentencing. See United States v. Gumila, 879\nF.3d 831, 838 (7th Cir. 2018); United States v. Lewis, 823 F.3d\n1075, 1082 (7th Cir. 2016). The district court also confirmed\nthat Tjader had time to review them and that he understood\nthem. See Gumila, 879 F.3d at 838; Bloch, 825 F.3d at 873. And\nbefore sentencing, when the district court invited Tjader to\npresent his objections to the conditions, Tjader raised some\n\fNo. 18‐2447 5\n\nobjections (not raised on appeal), but not others. We may infer\nfrom his choice to raise these other objections that his decision\nnot to raise the ones he now advances on appeal was strategic\nand intentional. See Gumila, 879 F.3d at 838; United States v.\nRanjel, 872 F.3d 815, 821–22 (7th Cir. 2017). Tjader’s decision\nto waive an explanation of the remaining conditions—noting\nthat he understood those conditions and their justifications—\nconfirmed his intent. See Lewis, 823 F.3d at 1083. This conduct\nresulted in a waiver of Tjader’s appellate challenges.1\n Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.\n\n\n\n\n 1 Tjader argues, and the government agrees, that the mandate to no‐\ntify “third parties” of “the risks” that his “history” and “characteristics”\npose is vague. Tjader’s waiver of this point is dispositive. See Raney, 842\nF.3d at 1044. We do, however, note that Tjader may later seek modification\nof this condition. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); United States v. Williams, 840 F.3d\n865 (7th Cir. 2016) (per curiam). As the district court informed Tjader at\nsentencing, he can ask the court to modify his conditions after he is re‐\nleased to the extent such modifications are appropriate.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: United States v. David Tjader\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-06-12\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18‐2447\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff‐Appellee,\\n v.\\n\\nDAVID TJADER,\\n Defendant‐Appellant.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Western District of Wisconsin.\\n No. 3:17CR00100‐001 — William M. Conley, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED APRIL 24, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 12, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before KANNE, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.\\n ST. EVE, Circuit Judge. In this appeal, David Tjader chal‐\\nlenges several conditions of his supervised release on\\ngrounds he did not raise in the district court. Because he\\nwaived these challenges, we affirm.\\n Tjader purchased child pornography online from sellers in\\nthe Philippines. He asked one seller about recordings of girls\\n\\f2 No. 18‐2447\\n\\nunder 14 years old being tortured, raped, or killed. His con‐\\nduct involved over 250 different pornographic images and\\nvideos of prepubescent girls. Tjader pleaded guilty to one\\ncount of receiving child pornography. See 18 U.S.C.\\n§ 2252(a)(2),(b)(1).\\n A United States probation officer prepared a presentence\\ninvestigation report and a supervision plan. Tjader received a\\ncopy of this plan and confirmed with the district court that,\\nbefore sentencing, he reviewed and understood it. As part of\\nthe plan, the probation officer proposed the following\\nsupervised‐release terms—terms that Tjader now challenges\\non appeal:\\n Condition 1: Defendant shall not leave the judicial\\n district in which defendant is being supervised without the\\n permission of the Court or probation officer.\\n Condition 2: Defendant … shall … follow the [pro‐\\n bation] officer’s instructions … .\\n Condition 11: As directed by the probation officer,\\n defendant shall notify third parties of risks that may be oc‐\\n casioned by defendant’s criminal record or personal history\\n or characteristics … .\\n Condition 12: Provide the supervising U.S. proba‐\\n tion officer any and all requested financial information, in‐\\n cluding copies of state and federal tax returns.\\n Condition 16: As approved by the supervising U.S.\\n Probation Officer, undergo psychosexual evaluations,\\n which may involve use of polygraph examinations. Defend‐\\n ant shall participate in an outpatient sex offender counsel‐\\n ing program if recommended by the evaluator, … .\\n Condition 17: Not meet or spend time with any per‐\\n son under the age of 18 or have verbal, written, telephonic\\n\\fNo. 18‐2447 3\\n\\n or electronic communication with any such person … . This\\n provision does not include persons under the age of 18, such\\n as waiters, cashiers, ticket vendors, etc., with whom defend‐\\n ant must deal in order to obtain ordinary and usual com‐\\n mercial services.\\n Condition 18: Not work in any occupation, business\\n or profession, or participate in any volunteer activity where\\n he has access to children under the age of 18 without the\\n prior approval of the supervising U.S. probation officer.\\n Tjader initially objected to only two of these conditions rel‐\\nevant to this appeal. First, he argued that Condition 12 (re‐\\nquiring that he provide financial information upon request)\\nwas an “excessive intrusion” and “not rationally designed to\\nsupervise him” because his crime was not financial in nature.\\nSecond, he argued that Condition 16 (requiring psychosexual\\nevaluation and potentially counseling) was impermissible to\\nthe extent that it authorized Abel Screening and plethysmo‐\\ngraph examinations (tests that measure sexual interest) and\\npolygraph tests because those tests, he said, must be shown\\nto be reliable under Daubert before they could be used. (Tjader\\nobjected to other conditions as well, but he does not challenge\\nthem on appeal.)\\n The court addressed Tjader’s objections in detail, over‐\\nruled them, and adopted the proposed conditions. The court\\nthen asked Tjader whether it should read and justify the re‐\\nmaining conditions or adopt the supervision plan’s recitation\\nof them and their explanations. Tjader responded that he\\n“waive[d] the reading of any justification of the additional\\nconditions that [he] did not object to.” He also acknowledged\\nthat he reviewed the conditions with counsel and that he un‐\\nderstood them and their justifications. The court sentenced\\n\\f4 No. 18‐2447\\n\\nTjader to seven years in prison and ten years of supervised\\nrelease, and it ordered him to pay restitution.\\n On appeal, Tjader again challenges Condition 12 (the\\nfinancial‐monitoring condition) and Condition 16 (the\\nevaluation and treatment condition), but he does so on new\\ngrounds. For Condition 12, rather than argue as he did in the\\ndistrict court that it is unduly burdensome, he now asserts\\nthat the district court gave inadequate reasons for imposing\\nit. For Condition 16, he now primarily argues that the court\\nimpermissibly delegated its authority to non‐judicial actors.\\nHe also contests other conditions for the first time.\\n We review preserved arguments for abuse of discretion\\nand forfeited ones for plain error. See United States v. Bickart,\\n825 F.3d 832, 839 (7th Cir. 2016). Waived arguments—those\\nthat are intentionally relinquished—we cannot review at all.\\nSee United States v. Bloch, 825 F.3d 862, 873 (7th Cir. 2016).\\n Tjader waived all of his appellate arguments against the\\nsupervisory conditions. When a defendant has received ad‐\\nvanced notice of conditions of supervised release and is in‐\\nvited to object to them in the district court, a “failure to object\\n… can amount to waiver.” United States v. Gabriel, 831 F.3d\\n811, 814 (7th Cir. 2016); see also United States v. Raney, 842 F.3d\\n1041, 1044 (7th Cir. 2016). Tjader had advanced notice of the\\nconditions because they were in the supervision plan, which\\nhe received before sentencing. See United States v. Gumila, 879\\nF.3d 831, 838 (7th Cir. 2018); United States v. Lewis, 823 F.3d\\n1075, 1082 (7th Cir. 2016). The district court also confirmed\\nthat Tjader had time to review them and that he understood\\nthem. See Gumila, 879 F.3d at 838; Bloch, 825 F.3d at 873. And\\nbefore sentencing, when the district court invited Tjader to\\npresent his objections to the conditions, Tjader raised some\\n\\fNo. 18‐2447 5\\n\\nobjections (not raised on appeal), but not others. We may infer\\nfrom his choice to raise these other objections that his decision\\nnot to raise the ones he now advances on appeal was strategic\\nand intentional. See Gumila, 879 F.3d at 838; United States v.\\nRanjel, 872 F.3d 815, 821–22 (7th Cir. 2017). Tjader’s decision\\nto waive an explanation of the remaining conditions—noting\\nthat he understood those conditions and their justifications—\\nconfirmed his intent. See Lewis, 823 F.3d at 1083. This conduct\\nresulted in a waiver of Tjader’s appellate challenges.1\\n Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 1 Tjader argues, and the government agrees, that the mandate to no‐\\ntify “third parties” of “the risks” that his “history” and “characteristics”\\npose is vague. Tjader’s waiver of this point is dispositive. See Raney, 842\\nF.3d at 1044. We do, however, note that Tjader may later seek modification\\nof this condition. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); United States v. Williams, 840 F.3d\\n865 (7th Cir. 2016) (per curiam). As the district court informed Tjader at\\nsentencing, he can ask the court to modify his conditions after he is re‐\\nleased to the extent such modifications are appropriate.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2573,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4628923,"string":"4,628,923"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"Mark RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant-Appellee."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Richardson v. Chi. Transit Auth."},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-06-12"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"17-3508 & 18-2199"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Flaum, Kanne, Scudder\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\nMARK RICHARDSON,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nCHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY,\\n Defendant-Appellee.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeals from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 16-cv-03027— John Robert Blakey, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED MAY 14, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 12, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before FLAUM, KANNE, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\\n FLAUM, Circuit Judge. Mark Richardson, a former Chicago\\nTransit Authority (“CTA”) bus operator, alleged CTA took ad-\\nverse action against him because of his extreme obesity in vi-\\nolation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990\\n(“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101–12213, as amended by the ADA\\nAmendments Act of 2008 (“ADAAA”), Pub. L. No. 110-325,\\n122 Stat. 3553. The district court disagreed. It held extreme\\nobesity only qualifies as a disability under the ADA if it is\\n\\f2 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\n\\ncaused by an underlying physiological disorder or condition,\\nand granted CTA’s motion for summary judgment because\\nRichardson offered no such evidence. Richardson appeals this\\nholding, as well as the district court’s decision to tax costs\\nagainst him. We affirm.\\n I. Background\\n Mark Richardson began working for CTA in 1993 as a tem-\\nporary bus operator, and he worked as a full-time operator\\nfrom August 1999 until February 2012. According to a CTA\\ndoctor, Richardson weighed 350 pounds in January 2005. And\\nanother CTA doctor indicated Richardson weighed 566\\npounds in May 2009. Based on his Body Mass Index (a stand-\\nardized weight-to-height ratio used to determine whether an\\nindividual is underweight, within the normal weight range,\\noverweight, or obese) Richardson has “extreme” obesity\\nwhenever he weighs over 315 pounds. He also suffers from\\nhypertension and sleep apnea.\\n Beginning in early February 2010, Richardson was absent\\nfrom work because he had the flu. He attempted to return to\\nwork on February 19, but Advanced Occupational Medicine\\nServices (“AOMS”)—CTA’s third-party medical provider—\\ndocumented that Richardson had uncontrolled hypertension\\nand influenza, weighed over 400 pounds, and could not re-\\nturn to work until he controlled his blood pressure. For that\\nreason, on April 9, CTA’s Disability Review Committee trans-\\nferred Richardson to Temporary Medical Disability–Area 605\\n(“Area 605”). CTA administrative procedures define Area 605\\nas a “budgetary assignment for eligible union employees who\\nhave been found medically unfit to perform the essential\\nfunctions of their job classification due to an illness or injury.”\\n\\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 3\\n\\n On September 13, 2010, AOMS examined Richardson’s fit-\\nness to return to work. It found Richardson “physically fit to\\nwork as a bus operator,” but indicated Richardson “must be\\ncleared by safety prior to operating [a] bus.” CTA requires\\nAOMS to report if a bus operator returning from extended\\nleave weighs over 400 pounds because CTA bus seats are not\\ndesigned to accommodate drivers weighing over 400 pounds.\\nWeighing over this maximum does not, however, automati-\\ncally disqualify employees from working as bus operators.\\nCTA permits such employees to operate buses if the safety de-\\npartment finds they can safely perform their job. To make this\\ndetermination, CTA administers a “special assessment,” a\\ndriving performance test used to determine whether bus op-\\nerators can perform all standard operating procedures on six\\ntypes of CTA buses.\\n On September 16, 2010, Richardson completed a special\\nassessment. CTA’s Acting Manager of Bus Instruction, Marie\\nStewart, assigned Bus Instructors John Durnell and Elon\\nMcElroy to administer the test. During the assessment, Dur-\\nnell and McElroy joked about Richardson’s weight. Durnell\\ntestified he was just trying “to lighten up the situation,” and\\nasserted that in response, Richardson “started laughing and\\nhe started to relax.” Nevertheless, McElroy reported Durnell’s\\ncomments to Stewart, and Stewart reprimanded Durnell for\\nunprofessionalism.\\n Following the assessment, Durnell and McElroy each com-\\npleted a report. While Durnell concluded Richardson “can\\ndrive all of CTA’s buses in a safe and trusted manner,” both\\ninstructors noted several safety concerns: Richardson cross-\\npedaled, meaning his foot was on the gas and brake at the\\nsame time; Richardson was unable to make hand-over-hand\\n\\f4 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\n\\nturns; Richardson’s leg rested close to the door handle; Rich-\\nardson could not see the floor of the bus from his seat; part of\\nRichardson’s body hung off the driver’s seat; and the seat de-\\nflated when Richardson sat. Additionally, both instructors\\nnoted Richardson wore a seatbelt extender, wrote that Rich-\\nardson was “sweating heavily” and needed to lean onto the\\nbus for balance, and Durnell commented on a “hygiene prob-\\nlem.” At his deposition, McElroy testified that as a “former\\nheart patient,” he was worried Richardson’s “sweating\\n[could] lead to an episode.”\\n Stewart drafted a memorandum to CTA’s Vice President\\nof Bus Operations, Earl Swopes, concluding that “[b]ased on\\nthe Bus Instructors[’] observations and findings, the limited\\nspace in the driver’s area and the manufacturer requirements,\\nit would be unsafe for Bus Operator Richardson to operate\\nany CTA bus at this time.” She specifically referenced the\\nsafety concerns listed above. Moreover, Stewart wrote that\\n“[t]he maximum allowable weight per the manufacturer re-\\nquirements for CTA buses is 400 pounds,” and “[i]t has been\\nrepresented that Operator Richardson is over that weight\\nmaximum.” Because Richardson failed the assessment and\\ncould not adhere to all CTA operating procedures, Swopes\\ndetermined that Richardson could not safely operate CTA\\nbuses. Swopes testified he based this decision solely on Stew-\\nart’s memorandum, without any independent investigation.\\n Instead of immediately terminating Richardson’s employ-\\nment, CTA proposed a written agreement: CTA would trans-\\nfer Richardson back to Area 605 so he could work with doc-\\ntors to lose weight and be subject to periodic monitoring; in\\nexchange, Richardson would release his ability to bring vari-\\nous causes of action. Richardson refused. In March 2011, CTA\\n\\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 5\\n\\nnonetheless transferred Richardson to Area 605; the accompa-\\nnying form provides as a rationale that Richardson “exceeded\\nthe weight requirement to operate the bus.” In October 2011,\\nCTA informed Richardson that he was approaching two years\\nof inactive status, and per CTA policy, he could extend his\\ntime in Area 605 by one year by submitting medical documen-\\ntation. Richardson did not submit documentation, and in Feb-\\nruary 2012, CTA terminated his employment.\\n On December 15, 2015, the Equal Employment Oppor-\\ntunity Commission (“EEOC”) issued Richardson a right-to-\\nsue letter, and on March 10, 2016, Richardson brought the op-\\nerative complaint against CTA, alleging it violated the ADA\\nby “refus[ing] to allow [him] to return to work because it re-\\ngarded him as being too obese to work as a bus operator.” On\\nOctober 17, 2016, the district court denied CTA’s motion to\\ndismiss, ruling that “[e]ven if [Richardson] is ultimately re-\\nquired to prove that his obesity was caused by a physiological\\ndisorder, he is not required to allege the same.” On April 20,\\n2017, Richardson and CTA filed cross-motions for summary\\njudgment, and on November 13, 2017, the district court de-\\nnied Richardson’s motion and granted CTA’s motion. It held,\\nbased on the language of the ADA and the pertinent EEOC\\nregulation and interpretive guidance, that “to qualify as a pro-\\ntected physical impairment, claimants under the ADA must\\nshow that their severe obesity is caused by an underlying\\nphysiological disorder or condition.” Because Richardson\\npresented no such evidence, the district court entered judg-\\nment in CTA’s favor.\\n On December 7, 2017, CTA filed its bill of costs, seeking to\\nrecover $7,333.56 in deposition and copying costs as the pre-\\nvailing party pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\\n\\f6 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\n\\n54(d)(1). Richardson argued costs should not be taxed because\\nof his inability to pay, or alternatively, CTA’s costs should be\\nreduced because transcript delivery fees are not recoverable\\nand the transcript costs CTA sought were over the rate al-\\nlowed by local rules. On May 1, 2018, the district court issued\\na minute order taxing $2,067.26 in costs. It denied copying\\ncosts because the documents were available on the electronic\\ndocket, and it reduced deposition transcript costs.\\n Richardson separately appealed the district court’s grant\\nof CTA’s motion for summary judgment and decision to tax\\ncosts. We consolidated the appeals for resolution.\\n II. Discussion\\n A. The ADA and Obesity\\n We review cross-motions for summary judgment de novo,\\n“construing all facts and drawing all reasonable inferences in\\nfavor of the party against whom the motion under considera-\\ntion was filed.” Hess v. Bd. of Trs. of S. Ill. Univ., 839 F.3d 668,\\n673 (7th Cir. 2016). Here, we consider only CTA’s motion for\\nsummary judgment, so we draw all facts in favor of Richard-\\nson. Summary judgment is proper “where there are no genu-\\nine issues of material fact and the movant is entitled to judg-\\nment as a matter of law.” Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)).\\n The ADA prohibits employers from “discriminat[ing]\\nagainst a qualified individual on the basis of disability.”\\n42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). To succeed on an ADA claim, an em-\\nployee must show: “(1) he is disabled; (2) he is otherwise qual-\\nified to perform the essential functions of the job with or with-\\nout reasonable accommodation; and (3) the adverse job action\\nwas caused by his disability.” Roberts v. City of Chicago, 817\\nF.3d 561, 565 (7th Cir. 2016).\\n\\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 7\\n\\n The ADA defines disability as: “(A) a physical or mental\\nimpairment that substantially limits one or more major life ac-\\ntivities of [an] individual; (B) a record of such an impairment;\\nor (C) being regarded as having such an impairment.”\\n42 U.S.C. § 12102(1). Richardson focuses his claim on the “re-\\ngarded as” prong. To succeed, he must establish he was sub-\\nject to a prohibited employment action “because of an actual\\nor perceived physical or mental impairment whether or not\\nthe impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life ac-\\ntivity.” Id. § 12102(3)(A). At issue here, then, is whether Rich-\\nardson can demonstrate either: (1) his extreme obesity is an\\nactual impairment; or (2) CTA perceived his extreme obesity\\nto be an impairment.\\n 1. Actual Impairment\\n Congress has not defined “impairment.” In a regulation\\nimplementing the ADA, however, the EEOC defined “physi-\\ncal impairment” as: “Any physiological disorder or condition,\\ncosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or\\nmore body systems, such as neurological, musculoskeletal,\\nspecial sense organs, respiratory (including speech organs),\\ncardiovascular, reproductive, digestive, genitourinary, im-\\nmune, circulatory, hemic, lymphatic, skin, and endocrine.” 29\\nC.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1). EEOC regulations interpreting the ADA\\nare entitled to deference under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural\\nResources Defense Council, Inc., unless they are “arbitrary, ca-\\npricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.” 467 U.S. 837,\\n844 (1984); see Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 130 F.3d 893, 899\\nn.3 (10th Cir. 1997).\\n Richardson and CTA disagree about whether his extreme\\nobesity—even without evidence of an underlying physiolog-\\nical condition—meets the definition of physical impairment\\n\\f8 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\n\\nand is thus an actionable disability for ADA purposes. This is\\nan issue of first impression for this Circuit. However, three of\\nour sister circuits have considered the question; each has held,\\nbased on the language of 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1), that obesity\\nis an ADA impairment only if it is the result of an underlying\\n“physiological disorder or condition.” See Morriss v. BNSF Ry.\\nCo., 817 F.3d 1104, 1108–13 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 256\\n(2016); EEOC v. Watkins Motor Lines, Inc., 463 F.3d 436, 441–43\\n(6th Cir. 2006); Francis v. City of Meriden, 129 F.3d 281, 286–87\\n(2d Cir. 1997).1 The majority of district courts have also ex-\\npressed this view.2 In contrast, only a small number of district\\ncourts have held extreme obesity is an ADA impairment even\\nwithout evidence of a physiological cause. See, e.g., Velez v.\\nCloghan Concepts, LLC, No. 18-cv-1901, 2019 WL 2423145, at *4\\n(S.D. Cal. June 10, 2019); Velez v. II Fornanio (Am.) Corp., No.\\n18-cv-1840, 2018 WL 6446169, at *2–4 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2018);\\nMcCollum v. Livingston, No. 14-cv-3253, 2017 WL 608665, at\\n\\n 1 The Ninth Circuit has acknowledged that “the scope of ADA protec-\\n\\ntion for individuals suffering from obesity … presents an open question\\nof federal law in this circuit,” but it has not had to resolve the issue. Taylor\\nv. Burlington N. R.R. Holdings, Inc., 904 F.3d 846, 851–53 (9th Cir. 2018).\\n 2 See, e.g., Sturgill v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., No. 18-cv-566, 2019 WL 1063374,\\n\\nat *3–4 (E.D. Va. Mar. 6, 2019); Shell v. Burlington N. Santa Fe Ry. Co., No.\\n15-cv-11040, 2018 WL 1156249, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 5, 2018); Brownwood v.\\nWells Trucking, LLC, No. 16-cv-01264, 2017 WL 9289453, at *6 (D. Colo.\\nNov. 9, 2017); Silva v. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs for the Cty. of Roosevelt, No. 15-cv-\\n1046, 2017 WL 4325769, at *7–8 (D.N.M. Sept. 26, 2017); Valtierra v. Med-\\ntronic Inc., 232 F. Supp. 3d 1117, 1123–25 (D. Ariz. 2017); Revolinski v.\\nAmtrak, No. 08-cv-1098, 2011 WL 2037015, at *11 (E.D. Wis. May 24, 2011);\\nHayes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 781 F. Supp. 2d 1080, 1091 (D. Or. 2011); Ni\\nv. Rite Aid of N.J., No. 10-cv-1522, 2010 WL 2557523, at *3 (D.N.J. June 22,\\n2010); Hill v. Verizon Md., Inc., No. 07-cv-3123, 2009 WL 2060088, at *6 (D.\\nMd. July 13, 2009).\\n\\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 9\\n\\n*35 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 3, 2017); EEOC v. Res. for Human Dev., Inc.,\\n827 F. Supp. 2d 688, 693–95 (E.D. La. 2011); Lowe v. Am. Eu-\\nrocopter, LLC, No. 10-cv-24, 2010 WL 5232523, at *7–8 (N.D.\\nMiss. Dec. 16, 2010).3 We join the Second, Sixth, and Eighth\\nCircuits. Without evidence that Richardson’s extreme obesity\\nwas caused by a physiological disorder or condition, his obe-\\nsity is not a physical impairment under the plain language of\\nthe EEOC regulation.\\n In his arguments to the contrary, Richardson focuses first\\non the ADAAA. Congress passed these amendments in 2008\\nto ensure that the ADA’s “definition of disability … be con-\\nstrued in favor of broad coverage.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(4)(A).\\nCongress emphasized “that the primary object of attention in\\ncases brought under the ADA should be whether entities cov-\\nered under the ADA have complied with their obligations,”\\nwhile “the question of whether an individual’s impairment is\\na disability under the ADA should not demand extensive\\nanalysis.” ADAAA § 2(b)(5), 122 Stat. at 3554.\\n Specifically, Congress sought to broaden the scope of the\\n“being regarded as having such an impairment” definition of\\ndisability. Id. § 2(b)(3); see Miller v. Ill. Dep’t of Transp., 643 F.3d\\n190, 196 (7th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he ‘regarded as’ prong is an im-\\nportant protection that should not be nullified by creating an\\nimpossibly high standard of proof, as Congress indicated\\neven more strongly in the 2008 amendments.”). It rejected the\\nSupreme Court’s decision in Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc.,\\n\\n\\n\\n 3 The Montana Supreme Court reached a similar conclusion, discuss-\\ning the ADA when interpreting the analogous Montana law. BNSF Ry. Co.\\nv. Feit, 281 P.3d 225, 230–31 (Mont. 2012).\\n\\f10 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\n\\n527 U.S. 471 (1999), which held that to be regarded as disa-\\nbled, an employee’s disability must substantially limit a major\\nlife activity. See id. at 490 (“An employer runs afoul of the\\nADA when it makes an employment decision based on a\\nphysical or mental impairment, real or imagined, that is re-\\ngarded as substantially limiting a major life activity.”). There-\\nfore, Congress amended the ADA to make clear an individual\\ncan be “regarded as” having an impairment “whether or not\\nthe impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life ac-\\ntivity,” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(3)(A), and the EEOC adopted regu-\\nlations to the same effect. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(2)\\n(“Whether an individual’s impairment ‘substantially limits’ a\\nmajor life activity is not relevant to coverage under … the ‘re-\\ngarded as’ prong.”); id. § 1630.2(l)(1).\\n Additionally, Congress relaxed court-imposed rules as to\\nhow severe an impairment must be to be considered a disa-\\nbility. It sought to abrogate the Supreme Court’s decisions in\\nSutton and Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Wil-\\nliams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002), because the Court’s definition of\\n“substantially limits a major life activity” in those cases “cre-\\nated an inappropriately high level of limitation necessary to\\nobtain coverage under the ADA” by requiring that employees\\nhave an impairment that “severely restrict[ed]” a major life\\nactivity. ADAAA § 2(b)(2)–(5), 122 Stat. at 3554.4 It found that\\n\\n 4See Toyota, 534 U.S. at 197–98 (holding “substantially” and “major”\\n“need to be interpreted strictly to create a demanding standard for quali-\\nfying as disabled,” and therefore, to be disabled “an individual must have\\nan impairment that prevents or severely restricts the individual from do-\\ning activities that are of central importance to most people’s daily lives”);\\nSutton, 527 U.S. at 482–83 (“A person whose physical or mental impair-\\nment is corrected by medication or other measures does not have an im-\\npairment that presently ‘substantially limits’ a major life activity.”).\\n\\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 11\\n\\nEEOC regulations “defining the term ‘substantially limits’ as\\n‘significantly restricted’ [were] inconsistent with congres-\\nsional intent[] by expressing too high a standard,” and ex-\\npressed its “expectation” that the EEOC would revise its reg-\\nulations. Id. § 2(a)(8), (b)(6). The EEOC adhered to this di-\\nrective. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii) (“An impairment need\\nnot prevent, or significantly or severely restrict, the individual\\nfrom performing a major life activity in order to be considered\\nsubstantially limiting.”); id. § 1630.2(i)(2) (“[T]he term ‘major’\\nshall not be interpreted strictly to create a demanding stand-\\nard for disability.”).\\n Richardson contends that after the ADAAA, courts must\\nbroadly construe impairment to encompass extreme obesity,\\neven without evidence of an underlying physiological condi-\\ntion. Cf. EEOC v. BNSF Ry. Co., 902 F.3d 916, 923 (9th Cir. 2018)\\n(“impairment” should be interpreted “broadly” after the\\nADAAA). We disagree. While Congress criticized the Su-\\npreme Court’s understanding of “substantially limits a major\\nlife activity” at length, it said nothing about judicial interpre-\\ntation of impairment. See Morriss, 817 F.3d at 1111. Likewise,\\nwhile Congress instructed the EEOC to alter its definitions of\\n“substantially limits” and “major life activity,” it made no\\nsuch instruction with respect to the EEOC’s definition of im-\\npairment. See id. Indeed, the ADAAA’s legislative history ex-\\nplicitly states that Congress “expect[ed] that the currently reg-\\nulatory definition of [physical or mental impairment], as\\npromulgated by agencies such as the [EEOC] … [would] not\\nchange.” Statement of the Managers to Accompany S. 3406,\\nThe Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of\\n2008, 154 Cong. Rec. S8342-01, S8345 (Sept. 11, 2008). The\\nEEOC therefore did not modify its regulation defining im-\\n\\f12 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\n\\npairment, and even after the ADAAA, the definition of phys-\\nical impairment remains inextricably tied to a “physiological\\ndisorder or condition.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1); see Morriss,\\n817 F.3d at 1111 (“The ADAAA’s general policy statement\\ncannot trump this plain language.”).\\n Next, Richardson insists that we must interpret the\\nEEOC’s definition of physical impairment in light of EEOC\\ninterpretive guidance. That guidance, which interprets both\\nthe ADA and the EEOC regulation, states:\\n It is important to distinguish between condi-\\n tions that are impairments and physical, psy-\\n chological, environmental, cultural, and eco-\\n nomic characteristics that are not impairments.\\n The definition of the term “impairment” does\\n not include physical characteristics such as eye\\n color, hair color, left-handedness, or height,\\n weight, or muscle tone that are within “normal”\\n range and are not the result of a physiological\\n disorder.\\n29 C.F.R. pt. 1630, app. § 1630.2(h). While EEOC interpretive\\nguidance is “not entitled to full Chevron deference,” it does\\n“reflect a body of experience and informed judgment to which\\ncourts and litigants may properly resort for guidance” and is\\ntherefore “entitled to a measure of respect under the less def-\\nerential Skidmore [v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944)] stand-\\nard.” Fed. Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389, 399 (2008)\\n(citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see Gile v.\\nUnited Airlines, Inc., 95 F.3d 492, 497 (7th Cir. 1996).\\n According to Richardson, this EEOC guidance specifies\\nthat “impairment does not include the physical characteristic\\n\\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 13\\n\\nof weight if both of the following elements are present: (1) the\\nweight [is] within the normal range; and (2) the weight is not\\nthe result of a physiological disorder.” The Montana Supreme\\nCourt adopted this interpretation. BNSF Ry. Co. v. Feit, 281\\nP.3d 225, 229 (Mont. 2012). So did at least three district courts.\\nSee Velez, 2019 WL 2423145, at *4; Velez, 2018 WL 6446169, at\\n*4; Res. for Human Dev., 827 F. Supp. 2d at 694. Removing the\\nnegatives, Richardson posits that “[i]mpairment does include\\nthe physical characteristic of weight if either of the following\\nelements are true: (1) the weight is not within the normal\\nrange; or (2) the weight is the result of a physiological disor-\\nder.”\\n Like the Eighth Circuit, we do not find this reading of the\\ninterpretive guidance persuasive. Rather, “a more natural\\nreading of the interpretive guidance is that an individual’s\\nweight is generally a physical characteristic that qualifies as a\\nphysical impairment only if it falls outside the normal range\\nand it occurs as the result of a physiological disorder.” Morriss,\\n817 F.3d at 1108. As the Eighth Circuit reasoned, “reading …\\nthe EEOC interpretive guidance in its entirety supports this\\nconclusion” because, for example, “the interpretive guidance\\nalso provides that ‘[o]ther conditions, such as pregnancy, that\\nare not the result of a physiological disorder are also not im-\\npairments.’” Id. at 1108–09 (alteration in original) (quoting\\n29 C.F.R. pt. 1630, app. § 1630.2(h)).\\n Moreover, Richardson’s preferred interpretation is over-\\nbroad. If we were to read the EEOC interpretive guidance in\\nthe way he suggests, even an employee with normal weight\\ncould claim a weight-based physical impairment if his weight\\nwas the result of a physiological disorder. Likewise, any em-\\nployee whose weight—or other physical characteristic—is\\n\\f14 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\n\\neven slightly outside the “normal range” would have a phys-\\nical impairment even with no underlying physiological cause.\\nSuch results are inconsistent with the ADA’s text and purpose\\nand must be rejected. Otherwise, “the ‘regarded as’ prong …\\nwould become a catch-all cause of action for discrimination\\nbased on appearance, size, and any number of other things far\\nremoved from the reasons the [ADA] [was] passed.” Watkins,\\n463 F.3d at 443 (quoting Francis, 129 F.3d at 287).\\n In any event, even if this interpretive guidance means\\nwhat Richardson says it means, we do not defer to EEOC\\nguidance that is contrary to the text of the regulation it pur-\\nports to interpret. See Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.,\\n567 U.S. 142, 155 (2012) (“Deference is undoubtedly inappro-\\npriate … when the agency’s interpretation is ‘plainly errone-\\nous or inconsistent with the regulation.’” (quoting Auer v. Rob-\\nbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461 (1997))). The EEOC defines physical im-\\npairment as a “physiological disorder or condition.” 29 C.F.R.\\n§ 1630.2(h)(1). It is directly contrary to that definition to con-\\nsider a physical characteristic such as weight, even if outside\\nthe “normal range,” a physical impairment absent evidence\\nof an underlying physiological condition.5\\n\\n\\n 5 Richardson also emphasizes the EEOC has consistently expressed its\\n\\nview that extreme obesity is a physical impairment. In a compliance man-\\nual, the EEOC stated that while “[b]eing overweight, in and of itself, gen-\\nerally is not an impairment …, severe obesity, which has been defined as\\nbody weight more than 100% over the norm, is clearly an impairment.”\\nEEOC Compliance Manual § 902.2(c)(5)(ii) (2012) (citations and footnotes\\nomitted). The EEOC has also taken this position in litigation, both as plain-\\ntiff and amicus. True, courts may generally defer to both EEOC policy\\nstatements in a compliance manual and EEOC’s interpretation of its own\\nregulation in legal briefs. Christopher, 567 U.S. at 155; Holowecki, 552 U.S. at\\n399; see Bible v. United Student Aid Funds, Inc., 799 F.3d 633, 663 (7th Cir.\\n\\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 15\\n\\n Patient and scientific professional organizations, as amici\\ncuriae, make a somewhat related, but distinct argument. They\\ninsist that because both the medical community6 and federal\\nand state policymakers7 understand obesity as a disease, obe-\\nsity is in and of itself a physiological disorder and therefore a\\n\\n\\n\\n2015) (Flaum, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment) (“[I]t\\nis generally appropriate to defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own\\nregulations, even when that interpretation is informally announced.”).\\nHere, however, neither the compliance manual nor EEOC’s litigation po-\\nsition are entitled to our deference. For one, the EEOC removed this para-\\ngraph from its compliance manual in 2012. See EEOC, Section 902 Defini-\\ntion of the Term Disability (2012), https://www.eeoc.gov/pol-\\nicy/docs/902cm.html. And more importantly, the EEOC’s position is in di-\\nrect conflict with the regulation because it considers extreme obesity a\\nphysical impairment even without evidence of an underlying physiologi-\\ncal disorder or condition. See Morriss, 817 F.3d at 1111 n.4, 1112.\\n 6 For example, the American Medical Association describes “obesity\\nas a disease state with multiple pathophysiological aspects requiring a\\nrange of interventions to advance obesity treatment and prevention.” Am.\\nMed. Assoc. House of Delegates, Recognition of Obesity as a Disease (2013),\\nhttps://www.npr.org/documents/2013/jun/ama-resolution-obesity.pdf.\\nLikewise, the World Health Organization concluded “obesity should be\\nconsidered a disease in its own right.” World Health Org., Obesity and\\nOverweight (2003), http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/me-\\ndia/en/gsfs_obesity.pdf. And the National Institutes of Health said “[o]be-\\nsity is a complex, multifactorial chronic disease.” Nat’l Insts. of Health,\\nClinical Guidelines on the Identification, Evaluation, and Treatment of Over-\\nweight and Obesity in Adults, at xi (1998),\\nhttps://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/files/docs/guidelines/ob_gdlns.pdf.\\n 7 For instance, the Internal Revenue Service decided an individual\\ncould deduct costs of a weight-loss program as a medical care expense\\nbecause he had “a disease, obesity,” I.R.S. Rev. Rul. 2002-19, 2002 WL\\n484628 (Apr. 2, 2002), and the Social Security Administration recognized\\nobesity as “a complex, chronic disease characterized by excessive accumu-\\n\\f16 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\n\\nphysical impairment within the definition of the ADA. This\\nargument is not persuasive. The ADA is an antidiscrimina-\\ntion—not a public health—statute, and Congress’s desires as\\nit relates to the ADA do not necessarily align with those of the\\nmedical community. Moreover, amici’s argument proves too\\nmuch; if we agreed that obesity is itself a physiological disor-\\nder, then all obesity would be an ADA impairment. While\\nRichardson does not ask us to hold that all obese individu-\\nals—found to be as high as 39.8% of the American adult pop-\\nulation8—automatically have an ADA impairment, adopting\\namici’s position leads to this unavoidable, nonrealistic result.\\n At bottom, Richardson does not present any evidence sug-\\ngesting an underlying physiological disorder or condition\\ncaused his extreme obesity.9 Without such evidence, we can-\\nnot call Richardson’s extreme obesity a physical impairment\\n\\n\\n\\nlation of body fat.” SSR 00-3p, 2000 WL 33952015 (May 15, 2000). Addi-\\ntionally, in 2017, the Senate passed by unanimous consent a resolution in\\nsupport of “National Obesity Care Week,” recognizing “the disease of\\nobesity,” S. Res. 325, 115th Cong. (2017), and in 2018, the National Lieu-\\ntenant Governors Association passed a resolution which called obesity “a\\nchronic disease.” Nat’l Lieutenant Governors Ass’n, Resolution in Support\\nof the Treatment and Prevention of Obesity (June 29, 2018),\\nhttps://www.nlga.us/wp-content/uploads/2018-Resolution-in-Support-\\nof-the-Prevention-and-Treatment-of-Obesity-2.pdf.\\n 8 See U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., Prevalence of Obesity Among\\n\\nAdults and Youth: United States, 2015–2016 (Oct. 2017),\\nhttps://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db288.pdf.\\n 9True, Richardson’s pulmonologist submitted a declaration stating\\nRichardson’s hypertension and sleep apnea were “related to” his obesity.\\nHowever, there is nothing in the record suggesting Richardson’s hyper-\\ntension or sleep apnea caused his obesity.\\n\\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 17\\n\\nwithin the meaning of the ADA and the EEOC regulation. See\\nMorriss, 817 F.3d at 1112; Watkins, 463 F.3d at 443.10\\n 2. Perceived Impairment\\n Alternatively, Richardson argues that even if we hold ex-\\ntreme obesity is not itself an impairment, he is still disabled\\nunder the ADA because CTA perceived his obesity to be a\\nphysical impairment. See 42 U.S.C. § 12102(3)(A). To succeed\\non this claim, Richardson must show CTA took adverse action\\nagainst him based on the belief that his condition was an im-\\npairment—as the ADA defines that term—not merely based\\non knowledge of Richardson’s physical characteristic. See\\nMorriss, 817 F.3d at 1113 (“[A]s a threshold matter, [the em-\\nployee] was required to show that [the employer] perceived\\nhis obesity to be a condition that met the definition of ‘physi-\\ncal impairment.’”); Francis, 129 F.3d at 285 (“[T]he plaintiff\\nmust allege that the employer believed, however erroneously,\\n\\n\\n 10 Richardson also suggests the fact that he “suffered from extreme\\nobesity … alone is sufficient … to establish that he meets the definition of\\n‘disability’ under the ADA.” Cf. Watkins, 463 F.3d at 443–45 & n.1 (Gib-\", \"author\": \"Joel Martin Flaum\"}, {\"type\": \"concurrence\", \"author\": \"bons\", \"text\": \"bons, J., concurring) (opining that “[i]t is possible that morbid obesity is a\\ndisorder that by its very nature has a physiological cause,” but agreeing\\nsummary judgment was proper because the plaintiff put forth no evidence\\nto that effect); Cook v. State of R.I., Dep’t of Mental Health, Retardation, &\\nHosps., 10 F.3d 17, 23 (1st Cir. 1993) (concluding a jury could find that\\nplaintiff’s “morbid obesity” was a “physical impairment” because “she\\npresented expert testimony that morbid obesity is a physiological disorder\\ninvolving a dysfunction of both the metabolic system and the neurological\\nappetite-suppressing signal system, capable of causing adverse effects\\nwithin the musculoskeletal, respiratory, and cardiovascular system”). We\\nneed not decide whether, on a particular evidentiary showing, extreme\\nobesity alone can be considered a physiological condition because Rich-\\nardson presented no such evidence.\\n\\f18 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\n\\nthat the plaintiff suffered from an ‘impairment’ that, if it truly\\nexisted, would be covered under the [ADA] ….”). In other\\nwords, Richardson must present sufficient evidence to permit\\na reasonable jury to infer that CTA perceived his extreme obe-\\nsity was caused by an underlying physiological disorder or\\ncondition.\\n Richardson did not make this showing. To be sure, Rich-\\nardson introduced evidence that CTA took adverse action\\nagainst him based on his excessive weight. For example, CTA\\ntransferred Richardson to Area 605 because he exceeded the\\nweight specifications for CTA buses. Additionally, CTA re-\\nquired Richardson to take a special assessment because he\\nweighed over 400 pounds, not because of any violation of\\nCTA standard operating procedures. And in Stewart’s mem-\\norandum to Swopes summarizing the results of the special as-\\nsessment, she highlighted safety concerns directly related to\\nRichardson’s weight: he could not perform hand-over-hand\\nturning, he cross-pedaled, he had difficulty getting in and out\\nof the driver’s seat, his body hung off the seat, his leg was\\nclose to the door handle, and he exceeded the 400-pound max-\\nimum per CTA bus manufacturer requirements. But there is\\nno evidence Stewart, Swopes, or anyone else at CTA believed\\nRichardson’s excessive weight was caused by a physiological\\ndisorder or condition. To the contrary, the evidence suggests\\nCTA perceived Richardson’s weight as a physical characteris-\\ntic that made it unsafe for him to drive. These facts do not per-\\nmit a finding that CTA regarded Richardson as disabled for\\npurposes of ADA liability. See Francis, 129 F.3d at 287 (no lia-\\nbility where plaintiff “alleges only that [defendant] regarded\\nhim as disabled because it disciplined him for failing to meet\\na weight standard applied to all of its employees,” and not\\n\\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 19\\n\\n“because it perceived him as suffering from a physiological\\nweight-related disorder”).\\n Richardson cites to the First Circuit’s opinion in Cook v.\\nState of Rhode Island, Department of Mental Health, Retardation,\\n& Hospitals, 10 F.3d 17 (1st Cir. 1993), and suggests that the\\ncourt held a jury could find an employer perceived an em-\\nployee’s extreme obesity as a physical impairment merely be-\\ncause the employer “stated concerns about the plaintiff’s abil-\\nity to perform her job duties.” Richardson reads Cook too\\nbroadly. In Cook, the court affirmed a jury verdict in favor of\\nthe plaintiff under the identical “perceived disability” provi-\\nsion of the Rehabilitation Act. Id. at 23. The court explained\\nthat a jury could have found the defendant treated the plain-\\ntiff “as if she had a physical impairment” because the evi-\\ndence “show[ed] conclusively that [the defendant] treated\\nplaintiff’s obesity as if it actually affected her musculoskeletal\\nand cardiovascular systems.” Id. Critically, the court empha-\\nsized that the plaintiff presented “expert testimony that mor-\\nbid obesity is a physiological disorder.” Id. Here, by contrast,\\nRichardson presented no such evidence. The district court\\nthus properly held that CTA could not have perceived Rich-\\nardson as having a physical impairment within the ADA’s\\ndefinition.\\n B. Costs\\n “Unless a federal statute, [the Federal Rules of Civil Pro-\\ncedure], or a court order provides otherwise, costs—other\\nthan attorney’s fees—should be allowed to the prevailing\\nparty.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). “There is a presumption that\\nthe prevailing party will recover costs, and the losing party\\nbears the burden of an affirmative showing that taxed costs\\nare not appropriate.” Beamon v. Marshall & Ilsley Tr. Co., 411\\n\\f20 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\n\\nF.3d 854, 864 (7th Cir. 2005). This presumption “is difficult to\\novercome” and therefore, “the district court’s discretion is\\nnarrowly confined—the court must award costs unless it\\nstates good reasons for denying them.” Weeks v. Samsung\\nHeavy Indus. Co., 126 F.3d 926, 945 (7th Cir. 1997). We reverse\\na district court’s decision to award costs only after “a showing\\nof clear abuse of discretion.” Id.\\n We have held that “it is ‘within the discretion of the district\\ncourt to consider a plaintiff’s indigency’” when taxing costs\\nagainst him. Rivera v. City of Chicago, 469 F.3d 631, 634 (7th Cir.\\n2006) (quoting Badillo v. Cent. Steel & Wire Co., 717 F.2d 1160,\\n1165 (7th Cir. 1983)). To deny costs based on indigency, the\\ncourt must first “make a threshold factual finding that the los-\\ning party is ‘incapable of paying the court-imposed costs at\\nthis time or in the future.’” Id. at 635 (quoting McGill v. Faulk-\\nner, 18 F.3d 456, 459 (7th Cir. 1994)). “The burden is on the\\nlosing party to provide the district court with sufficient docu-\\nmentation to support such a finding.” Id. (internal quotation\\nmarks and citation omitted).\\n Richardson argues the district court abused its discretion\\nbecause it “completely failed to consider or address [his] ar-\\nguments and the evidence he submitted demonstrating his in-\\nability to pay the costs awarded at this time or in the future.”\\nWe disagree. To be sure, “district judges [must] provide at\\nleast a modicum of explanation when entering an award of\\ncosts.” Cengr v. Fusibond Piping Sys., Inc., 135 F.3d 445, 454 (7th\\nCir. 1998). Here however, the court provided an explanation.\\nIt made clear that CTA was entitled to costs as the prevailing\\nparty, and it provided an accounting of how it calculated costs\\nat $2,067.26 (significantly less than CTA’s initial $7,333.56 re-\\nquest). True, the district court did not mention Richardson’s\\n\\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 21\\n\\nclaim that he was indigent, but the indigence exception “is a\\nnarrow one” and “is not a blanket excuse for paying costs.”\\nRivera, 469 F.3d at 635–36. While we have held that a district\\ncourt abuses its discretion when it denies costs without expla-\\nnation on the basis of indigence, see id. at 636–37, Richardson\\ndoes not cite any case holding a district court abuses its dis-\\ncretion when it grants costs, with an explanation, but does not\\nexplicitly consider the plaintiff’s indigence. It was thus not\\nunreasonable for the district court to tax $2,067.26 in costs.\\n III. Conclusion\\n For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the\\ndistrict court.\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"FLAUM"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"KANNE"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"SCUDDER"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4628923/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":6,"string":"6"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Mark RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant-Appellee.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-06-12\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: Yes\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\nMARK RICHARDSON,\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\n v.\n\nCHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY,\n Defendant-Appellee.\n ____________________\n\n Appeals from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 16-cv-03027— John Robert Blakey, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED MAY 14, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 12, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before FLAUM, KANNE, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\n FLAUM, Circuit Judge. Mark Richardson, a former Chicago\nTransit Authority (“CTA”) bus operator, alleged CTA took ad-\nverse action against him because of his extreme obesity in vi-\nolation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990\n(“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101–12213, as amended by the ADA\nAmendments Act of 2008 (“ADAAA”), Pub. L. No. 110-325,\n122 Stat. 3553. The district court disagreed. It held extreme\nobesity only qualifies as a disability under the ADA if it is\n\f2 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\n\ncaused by an underlying physiological disorder or condition,\nand granted CTA’s motion for summary judgment because\nRichardson offered no such evidence. Richardson appeals this\nholding, as well as the district court’s decision to tax costs\nagainst him. We affirm.\n I. Background\n Mark Richardson began working for CTA in 1993 as a tem-\nporary bus operator, and he worked as a full-time operator\nfrom August 1999 until February 2012. According to a CTA\ndoctor, Richardson weighed 350 pounds in January 2005. And\nanother CTA doctor indicated Richardson weighed 566\npounds in May 2009. Based on his Body Mass Index (a stand-\nardized weight-to-height ratio used to determine whether an\nindividual is underweight, within the normal weight range,\noverweight, or obese) Richardson has “extreme” obesity\nwhenever he weighs over 315 pounds. He also suffers from\nhypertension and sleep apnea.\n Beginning in early February 2010, Richardson was absent\nfrom work because he had the flu. He attempted to return to\nwork on February 19, but Advanced Occupational Medicine\nServices (“AOMS”)—CTA’s third-party medical provider—\ndocumented that Richardson had uncontrolled hypertension\nand influenza, weighed over 400 pounds, and could not re-\nturn to work until he controlled his blood pressure. For that\nreason, on April 9, CTA’s Disability Review Committee trans-\nferred Richardson to Temporary Medical Disability–Area 605\n(“Area 605”). CTA administrative procedures define Area 605\nas a “budgetary assignment for eligible union employees who\nhave been found medically unfit to perform the essential\nfunctions of their job classification due to an illness or injury.”\n\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 3\n\n On September 13, 2010, AOMS examined Richardson’s fit-\nness to return to work. It found Richardson “physically fit to\nwork as a bus operator,” but indicated Richardson “must be\ncleared by safety prior to operating [a] bus.” CTA requires\nAOMS to report if a bus operator returning from extended\nleave weighs over 400 pounds because CTA bus seats are not\ndesigned to accommodate drivers weighing over 400 pounds.\nWeighing over this maximum does not, however, automati-\ncally disqualify employees from working as bus operators.\nCTA permits such employees to operate buses if the safety de-\npartment finds they can safely perform their job. To make this\ndetermination, CTA administers a “special assessment,” a\ndriving performance test used to determine whether bus op-\nerators can perform all standard operating procedures on six\ntypes of CTA buses.\n On September 16, 2010, Richardson completed a special\nassessment. CTA’s Acting Manager of Bus Instruction, Marie\nStewart, assigned Bus Instructors John Durnell and Elon\nMcElroy to administer the test. During the assessment, Dur-\nnell and McElroy joked about Richardson’s weight. Durnell\ntestified he was just trying “to lighten up the situation,” and\nasserted that in response, Richardson “started laughing and\nhe started to relax.” Nevertheless, McElroy reported Durnell’s\ncomments to Stewart, and Stewart reprimanded Durnell for\nunprofessionalism.\n Following the assessment, Durnell and McElroy each com-\npleted a report. While Durnell concluded Richardson “can\ndrive all of CTA’s buses in a safe and trusted manner,” both\ninstructors noted several safety concerns: Richardson cross-\npedaled, meaning his foot was on the gas and brake at the\nsame time; Richardson was unable to make hand-over-hand\n\f4 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\n\nturns; Richardson’s leg rested close to the door handle; Rich-\nardson could not see the floor of the bus from his seat; part of\nRichardson’s body hung off the driver’s seat; and the seat de-\nflated when Richardson sat. Additionally, both instructors\nnoted Richardson wore a seatbelt extender, wrote that Rich-\nardson was “sweating heavily” and needed to lean onto the\nbus for balance, and Durnell commented on a “hygiene prob-\nlem.” At his deposition, McElroy testified that as a “former\nheart patient,” he was worried Richardson’s “sweating\n[could] lead to an episode.”\n Stewart drafted a memorandum to CTA’s Vice President\nof Bus Operations, Earl Swopes, concluding that “[b]ased on\nthe Bus Instructors[’] observations and findings, the limited\nspace in the driver’s area and the manufacturer requirements,\nit would be unsafe for Bus Operator Richardson to operate\nany CTA bus at this time.” She specifically referenced the\nsafety concerns listed above. Moreover, Stewart wrote that\n“[t]he maximum allowable weight per the manufacturer re-\nquirements for CTA buses is 400 pounds,” and “[i]t has been\nrepresented that Operator Richardson is over that weight\nmaximum.” Because Richardson failed the assessment and\ncould not adhere to all CTA operating procedures, Swopes\ndetermined that Richardson could not safely operate CTA\nbuses. Swopes testified he based this decision solely on Stew-\nart’s memorandum, without any independent investigation.\n Instead of immediately terminating Richardson’s employ-\nment, CTA proposed a written agreement: CTA would trans-\nfer Richardson back to Area 605 so he could work with doc-\ntors to lose weight and be subject to periodic monitoring; in\nexchange, Richardson would release his ability to bring vari-\nous causes of action. Richardson refused. In March 2011, CTA\n\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 5\n\nnonetheless transferred Richardson to Area 605; the accompa-\nnying form provides as a rationale that Richardson “exceeded\nthe weight requirement to operate the bus.” In October 2011,\nCTA informed Richardson that he was approaching two years\nof inactive status, and per CTA policy, he could extend his\ntime in Area 605 by one year by submitting medical documen-\ntation. Richardson did not submit documentation, and in Feb-\nruary 2012, CTA terminated his employment.\n On December 15, 2015, the Equal Employment Oppor-\ntunity Commission (“EEOC”) issued Richardson a right-to-\nsue letter, and on March 10, 2016, Richardson brought the op-\nerative complaint against CTA, alleging it violated the ADA\nby “refus[ing] to allow [him] to return to work because it re-\ngarded him as being too obese to work as a bus operator.” On\nOctober 17, 2016, the district court denied CTA’s motion to\ndismiss, ruling that “[e]ven if [Richardson] is ultimately re-\nquired to prove that his obesity was caused by a physiological\ndisorder, he is not required to allege the same.” On April 20,\n2017, Richardson and CTA filed cross-motions for summary\njudgment, and on November 13, 2017, the district court de-\nnied Richardson’s motion and granted CTA’s motion. It held,\nbased on the language of the ADA and the pertinent EEOC\nregulation and interpretive guidance, that “to qualify as a pro-\ntected physical impairment, claimants under the ADA must\nshow that their severe obesity is caused by an underlying\nphysiological disorder or condition.” Because Richardson\npresented no such evidence, the district court entered judg-\nment in CTA’s favor.\n On December 7, 2017, CTA filed its bill of costs, seeking to\nrecover $7,333.56 in deposition and copying costs as the pre-\nvailing party pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\n\f6 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\n\n54(d)(1). Richardson argued costs should not be taxed because\nof his inability to pay, or alternatively, CTA’s costs should be\nreduced because transcript delivery fees are not recoverable\nand the transcript costs CTA sought were over the rate al-\nlowed by local rules. On May 1, 2018, the district court issued\na minute order taxing $2,067.26 in costs. It denied copying\ncosts because the documents were available on the electronic\ndocket, and it reduced deposition transcript costs.\n Richardson separately appealed the district court’s grant\nof CTA’s motion for summary judgment and decision to tax\ncosts. We consolidated the appeals for resolution.\n II. Discussion\n A. The ADA and Obesity\n We review cross-motions for summary judgment de novo,\n“construing all facts and drawing all reasonable inferences in\nfavor of the party against whom the motion under considera-\ntion was filed.” Hess v. Bd. of Trs. of S. Ill. Univ., 839 F.3d 668,\n673 (7th Cir. 2016). Here, we consider only CTA’s motion for\nsummary judgment, so we draw all facts in favor of Richard-\nson. Summary judgment is proper “where there are no genu-\nine issues of material fact and the movant is entitled to judg-\nment as a matter of law.” Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)).\n The ADA prohibits employers from “discriminat[ing]\nagainst a qualified individual on the basis of disability.”\n42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). To succeed on an ADA claim, an em-\nployee must show: “(1) he is disabled; (2) he is otherwise qual-\nified to perform the essential functions of the job with or with-\nout reasonable accommodation; and (3) the adverse job action\nwas caused by his disability.” Roberts v. City of Chicago, 817\nF.3d 561, 565 (7th Cir. 2016).\n\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 7\n\n The ADA defines disability as: “(A) a physical or mental\nimpairment that substantially limits one or more major life ac-\ntivities of [an] individual; (B) a record of such an impairment;\nor (C) being regarded as having such an impairment.”\n42 U.S.C. § 12102(1). Richardson focuses his claim on the “re-\ngarded as” prong. To succeed, he must establish he was sub-\nject to a prohibited employment action “because of an actual\nor perceived physical or mental impairment whether or not\nthe impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life ac-\ntivity.” Id. § 12102(3)(A). At issue here, then, is whether Rich-\nardson can demonstrate either: (1) his extreme obesity is an\nactual impairment; or (2) CTA perceived his extreme obesity\nto be an impairment.\n 1. Actual Impairment\n Congress has not defined “impairment.” In a regulation\nimplementing the ADA, however, the EEOC defined “physi-\ncal impairment” as: “Any physiological disorder or condition,\ncosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or\nmore body systems, such as neurological, musculoskeletal,\nspecial sense organs, respiratory (including speech organs),\ncardiovascular, reproductive, digestive, genitourinary, im-\nmune, circulatory, hemic, lymphatic, skin, and endocrine.” 29\nC.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1). EEOC regulations interpreting the ADA\nare entitled to deference under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural\nResources Defense Council, Inc., unless they are “arbitrary, ca-\npricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.” 467 U.S. 837,\n844 (1984); see Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 130 F.3d 893, 899\nn.3 (10th Cir. 1997).\n Richardson and CTA disagree about whether his extreme\nobesity—even without evidence of an underlying physiolog-\nical condition—meets the definition of physical impairment\n\f8 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\n\nand is thus an actionable disability for ADA purposes. This is\nan issue of first impression for this Circuit. However, three of\nour sister circuits have considered the question; each has held,\nbased on the language of 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1), that obesity\nis an ADA impairment only if it is the result of an underlying\n“physiological disorder or condition.” See Morriss v. BNSF Ry.\nCo., 817 F.3d 1104, 1108–13 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 256\n(2016); EEOC v. Watkins Motor Lines, Inc., 463 F.3d 436, 441–43\n(6th Cir. 2006); Francis v. City of Meriden, 129 F.3d 281, 286–87\n(2d Cir. 1997).1 The majority of district courts have also ex-\npressed this view.2 In contrast, only a small number of district\ncourts have held extreme obesity is an ADA impairment even\nwithout evidence of a physiological cause. See, e.g., Velez v.\nCloghan Concepts, LLC, No. 18-cv-1901, 2019 WL 2423145, at *4\n(S.D. Cal. June 10, 2019); Velez v. II Fornanio (Am.) Corp., No.\n18-cv-1840, 2018 WL 6446169, at *2–4 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2018);\nMcCollum v. Livingston, No. 14-cv-3253, 2017 WL 608665, at\n\n 1 The Ninth Circuit has acknowledged that “the scope of ADA protec-\n\ntion for individuals suffering from obesity … presents an open question\nof federal law in this circuit,” but it has not had to resolve the issue. Taylor\nv. Burlington N. R.R. Holdings, Inc., 904 F.3d 846, 851–53 (9th Cir. 2018).\n 2 See, e.g., Sturgill v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., No. 18-cv-566, 2019 WL 1063374,\n\nat *3–4 (E.D. Va. Mar. 6, 2019); Shell v. Burlington N. Santa Fe Ry. Co., No.\n15-cv-11040, 2018 WL 1156249, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 5, 2018); Brownwood v.\nWells Trucking, LLC, No. 16-cv-01264, 2017 WL 9289453, at *6 (D. Colo.\nNov. 9, 2017); Silva v. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs for the Cty. of Roosevelt, No. 15-cv-\n1046, 2017 WL 4325769, at *7–8 (D.N.M. Sept. 26, 2017); Valtierra v. Med-\ntronic Inc., 232 F. Supp. 3d 1117, 1123–25 (D. Ariz. 2017); Revolinski v.\nAmtrak, No. 08-cv-1098, 2011 WL 2037015, at *11 (E.D. Wis. May 24, 2011);\nHayes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 781 F. Supp. 2d 1080, 1091 (D. Or. 2011); Ni\nv. Rite Aid of N.J., No. 10-cv-1522, 2010 WL 2557523, at *3 (D.N.J. June 22,\n2010); Hill v. Verizon Md., Inc., No. 07-cv-3123, 2009 WL 2060088, at *6 (D.\nMd. July 13, 2009).\n\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 9\n\n*35 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 3, 2017); EEOC v. Res. for Human Dev., Inc.,\n827 F. Supp. 2d 688, 693–95 (E.D. La. 2011); Lowe v. Am. Eu-\nrocopter, LLC, No. 10-cv-24, 2010 WL 5232523, at *7–8 (N.D.\nMiss. Dec. 16, 2010).3 We join the Second, Sixth, and Eighth\nCircuits. Without evidence that Richardson’s extreme obesity\nwas caused by a physiological disorder or condition, his obe-\nsity is not a physical impairment under the plain language of\nthe EEOC regulation.\n In his arguments to the contrary, Richardson focuses first\non the ADAAA. Congress passed these amendments in 2008\nto ensure that the ADA’s “definition of disability … be con-\nstrued in favor of broad coverage.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(4)(A).\nCongress emphasized “that the primary object of attention in\ncases brought under the ADA should be whether entities cov-\nered under the ADA have complied with their obligations,”\nwhile “the question of whether an individual’s impairment is\na disability under the ADA should not demand extensive\nanalysis.” ADAAA § 2(b)(5), 122 Stat. at 3554.\n Specifically, Congress sought to broaden the scope of the\n“being regarded as having such an impairment” definition of\ndisability. Id. § 2(b)(3); see Miller v. Ill. Dep’t of Transp., 643 F.3d\n190, 196 (7th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he ‘regarded as’ prong is an im-\nportant protection that should not be nullified by creating an\nimpossibly high standard of proof, as Congress indicated\neven more strongly in the 2008 amendments.”). It rejected the\nSupreme Court’s decision in Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc.,\n\n\n\n 3 The Montana Supreme Court reached a similar conclusion, discuss-\ning the ADA when interpreting the analogous Montana law. BNSF Ry. Co.\nv. Feit, 281 P.3d 225, 230–31 (Mont. 2012).\n\f10 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\n\n527 U.S. 471 (1999), which held that to be regarded as disa-\nbled, an employee’s disability must substantially limit a major\nlife activity. See id. at 490 (“An employer runs afoul of the\nADA when it makes an employment decision based on a\nphysical or mental impairment, real or imagined, that is re-\ngarded as substantially limiting a major life activity.”). There-\nfore, Congress amended the ADA to make clear an individual\ncan be “regarded as” having an impairment “whether or not\nthe impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life ac-\ntivity,” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(3)(A), and the EEOC adopted regu-\nlations to the same effect. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(2)\n(“Whether an individual’s impairment ‘substantially limits’ a\nmajor life activity is not relevant to coverage under … the ‘re-\ngarded as’ prong.”); id. § 1630.2(l)(1).\n Additionally, Congress relaxed court-imposed rules as to\nhow severe an impairment must be to be considered a disa-\nbility. It sought to abrogate the Supreme Court’s decisions in\nSutton and Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Wil-\nliams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002), because the Court’s definition of\n“substantially limits a major life activity” in those cases “cre-\nated an inappropriately high level of limitation necessary to\nobtain coverage under the ADA” by requiring that employees\nhave an impairment that “severely restrict[ed]” a major life\nactivity. ADAAA § 2(b)(2)–(5), 122 Stat. at 3554.4 It found that\n\n 4See Toyota, 534 U.S. at 197–98 (holding “substantially” and “major”\n“need to be interpreted strictly to create a demanding standard for quali-\nfying as disabled,” and therefore, to be disabled “an individual must have\nan impairment that prevents or severely restricts the individual from do-\ning activities that are of central importance to most people’s daily lives”);\nSutton, 527 U.S. at 482–83 (“A person whose physical or mental impair-\nment is corrected by medication or other measures does not have an im-\npairment that presently ‘substantially limits’ a major life activity.”).\n\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 11\n\nEEOC regulations “defining the term ‘substantially limits’ as\n‘significantly restricted’ [were] inconsistent with congres-\nsional intent[] by expressing too high a standard,” and ex-\npressed its “expectation” that the EEOC would revise its reg-\nulations. Id. § 2(a)(8), (b)(6). The EEOC adhered to this di-\nrective. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii) (“An impairment need\nnot prevent, or significantly or severely restrict, the individual\nfrom performing a major life activity in order to be considered\nsubstantially limiting.”); id. § 1630.2(i)(2) (“[T]he term ‘major’\nshall not be interpreted strictly to create a demanding stand-\nard for disability.”).\n Richardson contends that after the ADAAA, courts must\nbroadly construe impairment to encompass extreme obesity,\neven without evidence of an underlying physiological condi-\ntion. Cf. EEOC v. BNSF Ry. Co., 902 F.3d 916, 923 (9th Cir. 2018)\n(“impairment” should be interpreted “broadly” after the\nADAAA). We disagree. While Congress criticized the Su-\npreme Court’s understanding of “substantially limits a major\nlife activity” at length, it said nothing about judicial interpre-\ntation of impairment. See Morriss, 817 F.3d at 1111. Likewise,\nwhile Congress instructed the EEOC to alter its definitions of\n“substantially limits” and “major life activity,” it made no\nsuch instruction with respect to the EEOC’s definition of im-\npairment. See id. Indeed, the ADAAA’s legislative history ex-\nplicitly states that Congress “expect[ed] that the currently reg-\nulatory definition of [physical or mental impairment], as\npromulgated by agencies such as the [EEOC] … [would] not\nchange.” Statement of the Managers to Accompany S. 3406,\nThe Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of\n2008, 154 Cong. Rec. S8342-01, S8345 (Sept. 11, 2008). The\nEEOC therefore did not modify its regulation defining im-\n\f12 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\n\npairment, and even after the ADAAA, the definition of phys-\nical impairment remains inextricably tied to a “physiological\ndisorder or condition.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1); see Morriss,\n817 F.3d at 1111 (“The ADAAA’s general policy statement\ncannot trump this plain language.”).\n Next, Richardson insists that we must interpret the\nEEOC’s definition of physical impairment in light of EEOC\ninterpretive guidance. That guidance, which interprets both\nthe ADA and the EEOC regulation, states:\n It is important to distinguish between condi-\n tions that are impairments and physical, psy-\n chological, environmental, cultural, and eco-\n nomic characteristics that are not impairments.\n The definition of the term “impairment” does\n not include physical characteristics such as eye\n color, hair color, left-handedness, or height,\n weight, or muscle tone that are within “normal”\n range and are not the result of a physiological\n disorder.\n29 C.F.R. pt. 1630, app. § 1630.2(h). While EEOC interpretive\nguidance is “not entitled to full Chevron deference,” it does\n“reflect a body of experience and informed judgment to which\ncourts and litigants may properly resort for guidance” and is\ntherefore “entitled to a measure of respect under the less def-\nerential Skidmore [v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944)] stand-\nard.” Fed. Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389, 399 (2008)\n(citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see Gile v.\nUnited Airlines, Inc., 95 F.3d 492, 497 (7th Cir. 1996).\n According to Richardson, this EEOC guidance specifies\nthat “impairment does not include the physical characteristic\n\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 13\n\nof weight if both of the following elements are present: (1) the\nweight [is] within the normal range; and (2) the weight is not\nthe result of a physiological disorder.” The Montana Supreme\nCourt adopted this interpretation. BNSF Ry. Co. v. Feit, 281\nP.3d 225, 229 (Mont. 2012). So did at least three district courts.\nSee Velez, 2019 WL 2423145, at *4; Velez, 2018 WL 6446169, at\n*4; Res. for Human Dev., 827 F. Supp. 2d at 694. Removing the\nnegatives, Richardson posits that “[i]mpairment does include\nthe physical characteristic of weight if either of the following\nelements are true: (1) the weight is not within the normal\nrange; or (2) the weight is the result of a physiological disor-\nder.”\n Like the Eighth Circuit, we do not find this reading of the\ninterpretive guidance persuasive. Rather, “a more natural\nreading of the interpretive guidance is that an individual’s\nweight is generally a physical characteristic that qualifies as a\nphysical impairment only if it falls outside the normal range\nand it occurs as the result of a physiological disorder.” Morriss,\n817 F.3d at 1108. As the Eighth Circuit reasoned, “reading …\nthe EEOC interpretive guidance in its entirety supports this\nconclusion” because, for example, “the interpretive guidance\nalso provides that ‘[o]ther conditions, such as pregnancy, that\nare not the result of a physiological disorder are also not im-\npairments.’” Id. at 1108–09 (alteration in original) (quoting\n29 C.F.R. pt. 1630, app. § 1630.2(h)).\n Moreover, Richardson’s preferred interpretation is over-\nbroad. If we were to read the EEOC interpretive guidance in\nthe way he suggests, even an employee with normal weight\ncould claim a weight-based physical impairment if his weight\nwas the result of a physiological disorder. Likewise, any em-\nployee whose weight—or other physical characteristic—is\n\f14 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\n\neven slightly outside the “normal range” would have a phys-\nical impairment even with no underlying physiological cause.\nSuch results are inconsistent with the ADA’s text and purpose\nand must be rejected. Otherwise, “the ‘regarded as’ prong …\nwould become a catch-all cause of action for discrimination\nbased on appearance, size, and any number of other things far\nremoved from the reasons the [ADA] [was] passed.” Watkins,\n463 F.3d at 443 (quoting Francis, 129 F.3d at 287).\n In any event, even if this interpretive guidance means\nwhat Richardson says it means, we do not defer to EEOC\nguidance that is contrary to the text of the regulation it pur-\nports to interpret. See Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.,\n567 U.S. 142, 155 (2012) (“Deference is undoubtedly inappro-\npriate … when the agency’s interpretation is ‘plainly errone-\nous or inconsistent with the regulation.’” (quoting Auer v. Rob-\nbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461 (1997))). The EEOC defines physical im-\npairment as a “physiological disorder or condition.” 29 C.F.R.\n§ 1630.2(h)(1). It is directly contrary to that definition to con-\nsider a physical characteristic such as weight, even if outside\nthe “normal range,” a physical impairment absent evidence\nof an underlying physiological condition.5\n\n\n 5 Richardson also emphasizes the EEOC has consistently expressed its\n\nview that extreme obesity is a physical impairment. In a compliance man-\nual, the EEOC stated that while “[b]eing overweight, in and of itself, gen-\nerally is not an impairment …, severe obesity, which has been defined as\nbody weight more than 100% over the norm, is clearly an impairment.”\nEEOC Compliance Manual § 902.2(c)(5)(ii) (2012) (citations and footnotes\nomitted). The EEOC has also taken this position in litigation, both as plain-\ntiff and amicus. True, courts may generally defer to both EEOC policy\nstatements in a compliance manual and EEOC’s interpretation of its own\nregulation in legal briefs. Christopher, 567 U.S. at 155; Holowecki, 552 U.S. at\n399; see Bible v. United Student Aid Funds, Inc., 799 F.3d 633, 663 (7th Cir.\n\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 15\n\n Patient and scientific professional organizations, as amici\ncuriae, make a somewhat related, but distinct argument. They\ninsist that because both the medical community6 and federal\nand state policymakers7 understand obesity as a disease, obe-\nsity is in and of itself a physiological disorder and therefore a\n\n\n\n2015) (Flaum, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment) (“[I]t\nis generally appropriate to defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own\nregulations, even when that interpretation is informally announced.”).\nHere, however, neither the compliance manual nor EEOC’s litigation po-\nsition are entitled to our deference. For one, the EEOC removed this para-\ngraph from its compliance manual in 2012. See EEOC, Section 902 Defini-\ntion of the Term Disability (2012), https://www.eeoc.gov/pol-\nicy/docs/902cm.html. And more importantly, the EEOC’s position is in di-\nrect conflict with the regulation because it considers extreme obesity a\nphysical impairment even without evidence of an underlying physiologi-\ncal disorder or condition. See Morriss, 817 F.3d at 1111 n.4, 1112.\n 6 For example, the American Medical Association describes “obesity\nas a disease state with multiple pathophysiological aspects requiring a\nrange of interventions to advance obesity treatment and prevention.” Am.\nMed. Assoc. House of Delegates, Recognition of Obesity as a Disease (2013),\nhttps://www.npr.org/documents/2013/jun/ama-resolution-obesity.pdf.\nLikewise, the World Health Organization concluded “obesity should be\nconsidered a disease in its own right.” World Health Org., Obesity and\nOverweight (2003), http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/me-\ndia/en/gsfs_obesity.pdf. And the National Institutes of Health said “[o]be-\nsity is a complex, multifactorial chronic disease.” Nat’l Insts. of Health,\nClinical Guidelines on the Identification, Evaluation, and Treatment of Over-\nweight and Obesity in Adults, at xi (1998),\nhttps://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/files/docs/guidelines/ob_gdlns.pdf.\n 7 For instance, the Internal Revenue Service decided an individual\ncould deduct costs of a weight-loss program as a medical care expense\nbecause he had “a disease, obesity,” I.R.S. Rev. Rul. 2002-19, 2002 WL\n484628 (Apr. 2, 2002), and the Social Security Administration recognized\nobesity as “a complex, chronic disease characterized by excessive accumu-\n\f16 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\n\nphysical impairment within the definition of the ADA. This\nargument is not persuasive. The ADA is an antidiscrimina-\ntion—not a public health—statute, and Congress’s desires as\nit relates to the ADA do not necessarily align with those of the\nmedical community. Moreover, amici’s argument proves too\nmuch; if we agreed that obesity is itself a physiological disor-\nder, then all obesity would be an ADA impairment. While\nRichardson does not ask us to hold that all obese individu-\nals—found to be as high as 39.8% of the American adult pop-\nulation8—automatically have an ADA impairment, adopting\namici’s position leads to this unavoidable, nonrealistic result.\n At bottom, Richardson does not present any evidence sug-\ngesting an underlying physiological disorder or condition\ncaused his extreme obesity.9 Without such evidence, we can-\nnot call Richardson’s extreme obesity a physical impairment\n\n\n\nlation of body fat.” SSR 00-3p, 2000 WL 33952015 (May 15, 2000). Addi-\ntionally, in 2017, the Senate passed by unanimous consent a resolution in\nsupport of “National Obesity Care Week,” recognizing “the disease of\nobesity,” S. Res. 325, 115th Cong. (2017), and in 2018, the National Lieu-\ntenant Governors Association passed a resolution which called obesity “a\nchronic disease.” Nat’l Lieutenant Governors Ass’n, Resolution in Support\nof the Treatment and Prevention of Obesity (June 29, 2018),\nhttps://www.nlga.us/wp-content/uploads/2018-Resolution-in-Support-\nof-the-Prevention-and-Treatment-of-Obesity-2.pdf.\n 8 See U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., Prevalence of Obesity Among\n\nAdults and Youth: United States, 2015–2016 (Oct. 2017),\nhttps://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db288.pdf.\n 9True, Richardson’s pulmonologist submitted a declaration stating\nRichardson’s hypertension and sleep apnea were “related to” his obesity.\nHowever, there is nothing in the record suggesting Richardson’s hyper-\ntension or sleep apnea caused his obesity.\n\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 17\n\nwithin the meaning of the ADA and the EEOC regulation. See\nMorriss, 817 F.3d at 1112; Watkins, 463 F.3d at 443.10\n 2. Perceived Impairment\n Alternatively, Richardson argues that even if we hold ex-\ntreme obesity is not itself an impairment, he is still disabled\nunder the ADA because CTA perceived his obesity to be a\nphysical impairment. See 42 U.S.C. § 12102(3)(A). To succeed\non this claim, Richardson must show CTA took adverse action\nagainst him based on the belief that his condition was an im-\npairment—as the ADA defines that term—not merely based\non knowledge of Richardson’s physical characteristic. See\nMorriss, 817 F.3d at 1113 (“[A]s a threshold matter, [the em-\nployee] was required to show that [the employer] perceived\nhis obesity to be a condition that met the definition of ‘physi-\ncal impairment.’”); Francis, 129 F.3d at 285 (“[T]he plaintiff\nmust allege that the employer believed, however erroneously,\n\n\n 10 Richardson also suggests the fact that he “suffered from extreme\nobesity … alone is sufficient … to establish that he meets the definition of\n‘disability’ under the ADA.” Cf. Watkins, 463 F.3d at 443–45 & n.1 (Gib-\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Mark RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant-Appellee.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-06-12\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: Yes\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\nMARK RICHARDSON,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nCHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY,\\n Defendant-Appellee.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeals from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 16-cv-03027— John Robert Blakey, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED MAY 14, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 12, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before FLAUM, KANNE, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\\n FLAUM, Circuit Judge. Mark Richardson, a former Chicago\\nTransit Authority (“CTA”) bus operator, alleged CTA took ad-\\nverse action against him because of his extreme obesity in vi-\\nolation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990\\n(“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101–12213, as amended by the ADA\\nAmendments Act of 2008 (“ADAAA”), Pub. L. No. 110-325,\\n122 Stat. 3553. The district court disagreed. It held extreme\\nobesity only qualifies as a disability under the ADA if it is\\n\\f2 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\n\\ncaused by an underlying physiological disorder or condition,\\nand granted CTA’s motion for summary judgment because\\nRichardson offered no such evidence. Richardson appeals this\\nholding, as well as the district court’s decision to tax costs\\nagainst him. We affirm.\\n I. Background\\n Mark Richardson began working for CTA in 1993 as a tem-\\nporary bus operator, and he worked as a full-time operator\\nfrom August 1999 until February 2012. According to a CTA\\ndoctor, Richardson weighed 350 pounds in January 2005. And\\nanother CTA doctor indicated Richardson weighed 566\\npounds in May 2009. Based on his Body Mass Index (a stand-\\nardized weight-to-height ratio used to determine whether an\\nindividual is underweight, within the normal weight range,\\noverweight, or obese) Richardson has “extreme” obesity\\nwhenever he weighs over 315 pounds. He also suffers from\\nhypertension and sleep apnea.\\n Beginning in early February 2010, Richardson was absent\\nfrom work because he had the flu. He attempted to return to\\nwork on February 19, but Advanced Occupational Medicine\\nServices (“AOMS”)—CTA’s third-party medical provider—\\ndocumented that Richardson had uncontrolled hypertension\\nand influenza, weighed over 400 pounds, and could not re-\\nturn to work until he controlled his blood pressure. For that\\nreason, on April 9, CTA’s Disability Review Committee trans-\\nferred Richardson to Temporary Medical Disability–Area 605\\n(“Area 605”). CTA administrative procedures define Area 605\\nas a “budgetary assignment for eligible union employees who\\nhave been found medically unfit to perform the essential\\nfunctions of their job classification due to an illness or injury.”\\n\\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 3\\n\\n On September 13, 2010, AOMS examined Richardson’s fit-\\nness to return to work. It found Richardson “physically fit to\\nwork as a bus operator,” but indicated Richardson “must be\\ncleared by safety prior to operating [a] bus.” CTA requires\\nAOMS to report if a bus operator returning from extended\\nleave weighs over 400 pounds because CTA bus seats are not\\ndesigned to accommodate drivers weighing over 400 pounds.\\nWeighing over this maximum does not, however, automati-\\ncally disqualify employees from working as bus operators.\\nCTA permits such employees to operate buses if the safety de-\\npartment finds they can safely perform their job. To make this\\ndetermination, CTA administers a “special assessment,” a\\ndriving performance test used to determine whether bus op-\\nerators can perform all standard operating procedures on six\\ntypes of CTA buses.\\n On September 16, 2010, Richardson completed a special\\nassessment. CTA’s Acting Manager of Bus Instruction, Marie\\nStewart, assigned Bus Instructors John Durnell and Elon\\nMcElroy to administer the test. During the assessment, Dur-\\nnell and McElroy joked about Richardson’s weight. Durnell\\ntestified he was just trying “to lighten up the situation,” and\\nasserted that in response, Richardson “started laughing and\\nhe started to relax.” Nevertheless, McElroy reported Durnell’s\\ncomments to Stewart, and Stewart reprimanded Durnell for\\nunprofessionalism.\\n Following the assessment, Durnell and McElroy each com-\\npleted a report. While Durnell concluded Richardson “can\\ndrive all of CTA’s buses in a safe and trusted manner,” both\\ninstructors noted several safety concerns: Richardson cross-\\npedaled, meaning his foot was on the gas and brake at the\\nsame time; Richardson was unable to make hand-over-hand\\n\\f4 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\n\\nturns; Richardson’s leg rested close to the door handle; Rich-\\nardson could not see the floor of the bus from his seat; part of\\nRichardson’s body hung off the driver’s seat; and the seat de-\\nflated when Richardson sat. Additionally, both instructors\\nnoted Richardson wore a seatbelt extender, wrote that Rich-\\nardson was “sweating heavily” and needed to lean onto the\\nbus for balance, and Durnell commented on a “hygiene prob-\\nlem.” At his deposition, McElroy testified that as a “former\\nheart patient,” he was worried Richardson’s “sweating\\n[could] lead to an episode.”\\n Stewart drafted a memorandum to CTA’s Vice President\\nof Bus Operations, Earl Swopes, concluding that “[b]ased on\\nthe Bus Instructors[’] observations and findings, the limited\\nspace in the driver’s area and the manufacturer requirements,\\nit would be unsafe for Bus Operator Richardson to operate\\nany CTA bus at this time.” She specifically referenced the\\nsafety concerns listed above. Moreover, Stewart wrote that\\n“[t]he maximum allowable weight per the manufacturer re-\\nquirements for CTA buses is 400 pounds,” and “[i]t has been\\nrepresented that Operator Richardson is over that weight\\nmaximum.” Because Richardson failed the assessment and\\ncould not adhere to all CTA operating procedures, Swopes\\ndetermined that Richardson could not safely operate CTA\\nbuses. Swopes testified he based this decision solely on Stew-\\nart’s memorandum, without any independent investigation.\\n Instead of immediately terminating Richardson’s employ-\\nment, CTA proposed a written agreement: CTA would trans-\\nfer Richardson back to Area 605 so he could work with doc-\\ntors to lose weight and be subject to periodic monitoring; in\\nexchange, Richardson would release his ability to bring vari-\\nous causes of action. Richardson refused. In March 2011, CTA\\n\\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 5\\n\\nnonetheless transferred Richardson to Area 605; the accompa-\\nnying form provides as a rationale that Richardson “exceeded\\nthe weight requirement to operate the bus.” In October 2011,\\nCTA informed Richardson that he was approaching two years\\nof inactive status, and per CTA policy, he could extend his\\ntime in Area 605 by one year by submitting medical documen-\\ntation. Richardson did not submit documentation, and in Feb-\\nruary 2012, CTA terminated his employment.\\n On December 15, 2015, the Equal Employment Oppor-\\ntunity Commission (“EEOC”) issued Richardson a right-to-\\nsue letter, and on March 10, 2016, Richardson brought the op-\\nerative complaint against CTA, alleging it violated the ADA\\nby “refus[ing] to allow [him] to return to work because it re-\\ngarded him as being too obese to work as a bus operator.” On\\nOctober 17, 2016, the district court denied CTA’s motion to\\ndismiss, ruling that “[e]ven if [Richardson] is ultimately re-\\nquired to prove that his obesity was caused by a physiological\\ndisorder, he is not required to allege the same.” On April 20,\\n2017, Richardson and CTA filed cross-motions for summary\\njudgment, and on November 13, 2017, the district court de-\\nnied Richardson’s motion and granted CTA’s motion. It held,\\nbased on the language of the ADA and the pertinent EEOC\\nregulation and interpretive guidance, that “to qualify as a pro-\\ntected physical impairment, claimants under the ADA must\\nshow that their severe obesity is caused by an underlying\\nphysiological disorder or condition.” Because Richardson\\npresented no such evidence, the district court entered judg-\\nment in CTA’s favor.\\n On December 7, 2017, CTA filed its bill of costs, seeking to\\nrecover $7,333.56 in deposition and copying costs as the pre-\\nvailing party pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\\n\\f6 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\n\\n54(d)(1). Richardson argued costs should not be taxed because\\nof his inability to pay, or alternatively, CTA’s costs should be\\nreduced because transcript delivery fees are not recoverable\\nand the transcript costs CTA sought were over the rate al-\\nlowed by local rules. On May 1, 2018, the district court issued\\na minute order taxing $2,067.26 in costs. It denied copying\\ncosts because the documents were available on the electronic\\ndocket, and it reduced deposition transcript costs.\\n Richardson separately appealed the district court’s grant\\nof CTA’s motion for summary judgment and decision to tax\\ncosts. We consolidated the appeals for resolution.\\n II. Discussion\\n A. The ADA and Obesity\\n We review cross-motions for summary judgment de novo,\\n“construing all facts and drawing all reasonable inferences in\\nfavor of the party against whom the motion under considera-\\ntion was filed.” Hess v. Bd. of Trs. of S. Ill. Univ., 839 F.3d 668,\\n673 (7th Cir. 2016). Here, we consider only CTA’s motion for\\nsummary judgment, so we draw all facts in favor of Richard-\\nson. Summary judgment is proper “where there are no genu-\\nine issues of material fact and the movant is entitled to judg-\\nment as a matter of law.” Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)).\\n The ADA prohibits employers from “discriminat[ing]\\nagainst a qualified individual on the basis of disability.”\\n42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). To succeed on an ADA claim, an em-\\nployee must show: “(1) he is disabled; (2) he is otherwise qual-\\nified to perform the essential functions of the job with or with-\\nout reasonable accommodation; and (3) the adverse job action\\nwas caused by his disability.” Roberts v. City of Chicago, 817\\nF.3d 561, 565 (7th Cir. 2016).\\n\\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 7\\n\\n The ADA defines disability as: “(A) a physical or mental\\nimpairment that substantially limits one or more major life ac-\\ntivities of [an] individual; (B) a record of such an impairment;\\nor (C) being regarded as having such an impairment.”\\n42 U.S.C. § 12102(1). Richardson focuses his claim on the “re-\\ngarded as” prong. To succeed, he must establish he was sub-\\nject to a prohibited employment action “because of an actual\\nor perceived physical or mental impairment whether or not\\nthe impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life ac-\\ntivity.” Id. § 12102(3)(A). At issue here, then, is whether Rich-\\nardson can demonstrate either: (1) his extreme obesity is an\\nactual impairment; or (2) CTA perceived his extreme obesity\\nto be an impairment.\\n 1. Actual Impairment\\n Congress has not defined “impairment.” In a regulation\\nimplementing the ADA, however, the EEOC defined “physi-\\ncal impairment” as: “Any physiological disorder or condition,\\ncosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or\\nmore body systems, such as neurological, musculoskeletal,\\nspecial sense organs, respiratory (including speech organs),\\ncardiovascular, reproductive, digestive, genitourinary, im-\\nmune, circulatory, hemic, lymphatic, skin, and endocrine.” 29\\nC.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1). EEOC regulations interpreting the ADA\\nare entitled to deference under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural\\nResources Defense Council, Inc., unless they are “arbitrary, ca-\\npricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.” 467 U.S. 837,\\n844 (1984); see Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 130 F.3d 893, 899\\nn.3 (10th Cir. 1997).\\n Richardson and CTA disagree about whether his extreme\\nobesity—even without evidence of an underlying physiolog-\\nical condition—meets the definition of physical impairment\\n\\f8 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\n\\nand is thus an actionable disability for ADA purposes. This is\\nan issue of first impression for this Circuit. However, three of\\nour sister circuits have considered the question; each has held,\\nbased on the language of 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1), that obesity\\nis an ADA impairment only if it is the result of an underlying\\n“physiological disorder or condition.” See Morriss v. BNSF Ry.\\nCo., 817 F.3d 1104, 1108–13 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 256\\n(2016); EEOC v. Watkins Motor Lines, Inc., 463 F.3d 436, 441–43\\n(6th Cir. 2006); Francis v. City of Meriden, 129 F.3d 281, 286–87\\n(2d Cir. 1997).1 The majority of district courts have also ex-\\npressed this view.2 In contrast, only a small number of district\\ncourts have held extreme obesity is an ADA impairment even\\nwithout evidence of a physiological cause. See, e.g., Velez v.\\nCloghan Concepts, LLC, No. 18-cv-1901, 2019 WL 2423145, at *4\\n(S.D. Cal. June 10, 2019); Velez v. II Fornanio (Am.) Corp., No.\\n18-cv-1840, 2018 WL 6446169, at *2–4 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2018);\\nMcCollum v. Livingston, No. 14-cv-3253, 2017 WL 608665, at\\n\\n 1 The Ninth Circuit has acknowledged that “the scope of ADA protec-\\n\\ntion for individuals suffering from obesity … presents an open question\\nof federal law in this circuit,” but it has not had to resolve the issue. Taylor\\nv. Burlington N. R.R. Holdings, Inc., 904 F.3d 846, 851–53 (9th Cir. 2018).\\n 2 See, e.g., Sturgill v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., No. 18-cv-566, 2019 WL 1063374,\\n\\nat *3–4 (E.D. Va. Mar. 6, 2019); Shell v. Burlington N. Santa Fe Ry. Co., No.\\n15-cv-11040, 2018 WL 1156249, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 5, 2018); Brownwood v.\\nWells Trucking, LLC, No. 16-cv-01264, 2017 WL 9289453, at *6 (D. Colo.\\nNov. 9, 2017); Silva v. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs for the Cty. of Roosevelt, No. 15-cv-\\n1046, 2017 WL 4325769, at *7–8 (D.N.M. Sept. 26, 2017); Valtierra v. Med-\\ntronic Inc., 232 F. Supp. 3d 1117, 1123–25 (D. Ariz. 2017); Revolinski v.\\nAmtrak, No. 08-cv-1098, 2011 WL 2037015, at *11 (E.D. Wis. May 24, 2011);\\nHayes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 781 F. Supp. 2d 1080, 1091 (D. Or. 2011); Ni\\nv. Rite Aid of N.J., No. 10-cv-1522, 2010 WL 2557523, at *3 (D.N.J. June 22,\\n2010); Hill v. Verizon Md., Inc., No. 07-cv-3123, 2009 WL 2060088, at *6 (D.\\nMd. July 13, 2009).\\n\\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 9\\n\\n*35 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 3, 2017); EEOC v. Res. for Human Dev., Inc.,\\n827 F. Supp. 2d 688, 693–95 (E.D. La. 2011); Lowe v. Am. Eu-\\nrocopter, LLC, No. 10-cv-24, 2010 WL 5232523, at *7–8 (N.D.\\nMiss. Dec. 16, 2010).3 We join the Second, Sixth, and Eighth\\nCircuits. Without evidence that Richardson’s extreme obesity\\nwas caused by a physiological disorder or condition, his obe-\\nsity is not a physical impairment under the plain language of\\nthe EEOC regulation.\\n In his arguments to the contrary, Richardson focuses first\\non the ADAAA. Congress passed these amendments in 2008\\nto ensure that the ADA’s “definition of disability … be con-\\nstrued in favor of broad coverage.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(4)(A).\\nCongress emphasized “that the primary object of attention in\\ncases brought under the ADA should be whether entities cov-\\nered under the ADA have complied with their obligations,”\\nwhile “the question of whether an individual’s impairment is\\na disability under the ADA should not demand extensive\\nanalysis.” ADAAA § 2(b)(5), 122 Stat. at 3554.\\n Specifically, Congress sought to broaden the scope of the\\n“being regarded as having such an impairment” definition of\\ndisability. Id. § 2(b)(3); see Miller v. Ill. Dep’t of Transp., 643 F.3d\\n190, 196 (7th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he ‘regarded as’ prong is an im-\\nportant protection that should not be nullified by creating an\\nimpossibly high standard of proof, as Congress indicated\\neven more strongly in the 2008 amendments.”). It rejected the\\nSupreme Court’s decision in Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc.,\\n\\n\\n\\n 3 The Montana Supreme Court reached a similar conclusion, discuss-\\ning the ADA when interpreting the analogous Montana law. BNSF Ry. Co.\\nv. Feit, 281 P.3d 225, 230–31 (Mont. 2012).\\n\\f10 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\n\\n527 U.S. 471 (1999), which held that to be regarded as disa-\\nbled, an employee’s disability must substantially limit a major\\nlife activity. See id. at 490 (“An employer runs afoul of the\\nADA when it makes an employment decision based on a\\nphysical or mental impairment, real or imagined, that is re-\\ngarded as substantially limiting a major life activity.”). There-\\nfore, Congress amended the ADA to make clear an individual\\ncan be “regarded as” having an impairment “whether or not\\nthe impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life ac-\\ntivity,” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(3)(A), and the EEOC adopted regu-\\nlations to the same effect. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(2)\\n(“Whether an individual’s impairment ‘substantially limits’ a\\nmajor life activity is not relevant to coverage under … the ‘re-\\ngarded as’ prong.”); id. § 1630.2(l)(1).\\n Additionally, Congress relaxed court-imposed rules as to\\nhow severe an impairment must be to be considered a disa-\\nbility. It sought to abrogate the Supreme Court’s decisions in\\nSutton and Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Wil-\\nliams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002), because the Court’s definition of\\n“substantially limits a major life activity” in those cases “cre-\\nated an inappropriately high level of limitation necessary to\\nobtain coverage under the ADA” by requiring that employees\\nhave an impairment that “severely restrict[ed]” a major life\\nactivity. ADAAA § 2(b)(2)–(5), 122 Stat. at 3554.4 It found that\\n\\n 4See Toyota, 534 U.S. at 197–98 (holding “substantially” and “major”\\n“need to be interpreted strictly to create a demanding standard for quali-\\nfying as disabled,” and therefore, to be disabled “an individual must have\\nan impairment that prevents or severely restricts the individual from do-\\ning activities that are of central importance to most people’s daily lives”);\\nSutton, 527 U.S. at 482–83 (“A person whose physical or mental impair-\\nment is corrected by medication or other measures does not have an im-\\npairment that presently ‘substantially limits’ a major life activity.”).\\n\\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 11\\n\\nEEOC regulations “defining the term ‘substantially limits’ as\\n‘significantly restricted’ [were] inconsistent with congres-\\nsional intent[] by expressing too high a standard,” and ex-\\npressed its “expectation” that the EEOC would revise its reg-\\nulations. Id. § 2(a)(8), (b)(6). The EEOC adhered to this di-\\nrective. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii) (“An impairment need\\nnot prevent, or significantly or severely restrict, the individual\\nfrom performing a major life activity in order to be considered\\nsubstantially limiting.”); id. § 1630.2(i)(2) (“[T]he term ‘major’\\nshall not be interpreted strictly to create a demanding stand-\\nard for disability.”).\\n Richardson contends that after the ADAAA, courts must\\nbroadly construe impairment to encompass extreme obesity,\\neven without evidence of an underlying physiological condi-\\ntion. Cf. EEOC v. BNSF Ry. Co., 902 F.3d 916, 923 (9th Cir. 2018)\\n(“impairment” should be interpreted “broadly” after the\\nADAAA). We disagree. While Congress criticized the Su-\\npreme Court’s understanding of “substantially limits a major\\nlife activity” at length, it said nothing about judicial interpre-\\ntation of impairment. See Morriss, 817 F.3d at 1111. Likewise,\\nwhile Congress instructed the EEOC to alter its definitions of\\n“substantially limits” and “major life activity,” it made no\\nsuch instruction with respect to the EEOC’s definition of im-\\npairment. See id. Indeed, the ADAAA’s legislative history ex-\\nplicitly states that Congress “expect[ed] that the currently reg-\\nulatory definition of [physical or mental impairment], as\\npromulgated by agencies such as the [EEOC] … [would] not\\nchange.” Statement of the Managers to Accompany S. 3406,\\nThe Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of\\n2008, 154 Cong. Rec. S8342-01, S8345 (Sept. 11, 2008). The\\nEEOC therefore did not modify its regulation defining im-\\n\\f12 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\n\\npairment, and even after the ADAAA, the definition of phys-\\nical impairment remains inextricably tied to a “physiological\\ndisorder or condition.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1); see Morriss,\\n817 F.3d at 1111 (“The ADAAA’s general policy statement\\ncannot trump this plain language.”).\\n Next, Richardson insists that we must interpret the\\nEEOC’s definition of physical impairment in light of EEOC\\ninterpretive guidance. That guidance, which interprets both\\nthe ADA and the EEOC regulation, states:\\n It is important to distinguish between condi-\\n tions that are impairments and physical, psy-\\n chological, environmental, cultural, and eco-\\n nomic characteristics that are not impairments.\\n The definition of the term “impairment” does\\n not include physical characteristics such as eye\\n color, hair color, left-handedness, or height,\\n weight, or muscle tone that are within “normal”\\n range and are not the result of a physiological\\n disorder.\\n29 C.F.R. pt. 1630, app. § 1630.2(h). While EEOC interpretive\\nguidance is “not entitled to full Chevron deference,” it does\\n“reflect a body of experience and informed judgment to which\\ncourts and litigants may properly resort for guidance” and is\\ntherefore “entitled to a measure of respect under the less def-\\nerential Skidmore [v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944)] stand-\\nard.” Fed. Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389, 399 (2008)\\n(citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see Gile v.\\nUnited Airlines, Inc., 95 F.3d 492, 497 (7th Cir. 1996).\\n According to Richardson, this EEOC guidance specifies\\nthat “impairment does not include the physical characteristic\\n\\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 13\\n\\nof weight if both of the following elements are present: (1) the\\nweight [is] within the normal range; and (2) the weight is not\\nthe result of a physiological disorder.” The Montana Supreme\\nCourt adopted this interpretation. BNSF Ry. Co. v. Feit, 281\\nP.3d 225, 229 (Mont. 2012). So did at least three district courts.\\nSee Velez, 2019 WL 2423145, at *4; Velez, 2018 WL 6446169, at\\n*4; Res. for Human Dev., 827 F. Supp. 2d at 694. Removing the\\nnegatives, Richardson posits that “[i]mpairment does include\\nthe physical characteristic of weight if either of the following\\nelements are true: (1) the weight is not within the normal\\nrange; or (2) the weight is the result of a physiological disor-\\nder.”\\n Like the Eighth Circuit, we do not find this reading of the\\ninterpretive guidance persuasive. Rather, “a more natural\\nreading of the interpretive guidance is that an individual’s\\nweight is generally a physical characteristic that qualifies as a\\nphysical impairment only if it falls outside the normal range\\nand it occurs as the result of a physiological disorder.” Morriss,\\n817 F.3d at 1108. As the Eighth Circuit reasoned, “reading …\\nthe EEOC interpretive guidance in its entirety supports this\\nconclusion” because, for example, “the interpretive guidance\\nalso provides that ‘[o]ther conditions, such as pregnancy, that\\nare not the result of a physiological disorder are also not im-\\npairments.’” Id. at 1108–09 (alteration in original) (quoting\\n29 C.F.R. pt. 1630, app. § 1630.2(h)).\\n Moreover, Richardson’s preferred interpretation is over-\\nbroad. If we were to read the EEOC interpretive guidance in\\nthe way he suggests, even an employee with normal weight\\ncould claim a weight-based physical impairment if his weight\\nwas the result of a physiological disorder. Likewise, any em-\\nployee whose weight—or other physical characteristic—is\\n\\f14 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\n\\neven slightly outside the “normal range” would have a phys-\\nical impairment even with no underlying physiological cause.\\nSuch results are inconsistent with the ADA’s text and purpose\\nand must be rejected. Otherwise, “the ‘regarded as’ prong …\\nwould become a catch-all cause of action for discrimination\\nbased on appearance, size, and any number of other things far\\nremoved from the reasons the [ADA] [was] passed.” Watkins,\\n463 F.3d at 443 (quoting Francis, 129 F.3d at 287).\\n In any event, even if this interpretive guidance means\\nwhat Richardson says it means, we do not defer to EEOC\\nguidance that is contrary to the text of the regulation it pur-\\nports to interpret. See Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.,\\n567 U.S. 142, 155 (2012) (“Deference is undoubtedly inappro-\\npriate … when the agency’s interpretation is ‘plainly errone-\\nous or inconsistent with the regulation.’” (quoting Auer v. Rob-\\nbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461 (1997))). The EEOC defines physical im-\\npairment as a “physiological disorder or condition.” 29 C.F.R.\\n§ 1630.2(h)(1). It is directly contrary to that definition to con-\\nsider a physical characteristic such as weight, even if outside\\nthe “normal range,” a physical impairment absent evidence\\nof an underlying physiological condition.5\\n\\n\\n 5 Richardson also emphasizes the EEOC has consistently expressed its\\n\\nview that extreme obesity is a physical impairment. In a compliance man-\\nual, the EEOC stated that while “[b]eing overweight, in and of itself, gen-\\nerally is not an impairment …, severe obesity, which has been defined as\\nbody weight more than 100% over the norm, is clearly an impairment.”\\nEEOC Compliance Manual § 902.2(c)(5)(ii) (2012) (citations and footnotes\\nomitted). The EEOC has also taken this position in litigation, both as plain-\\ntiff and amicus. True, courts may generally defer to both EEOC policy\\nstatements in a compliance manual and EEOC’s interpretation of its own\\nregulation in legal briefs. Christopher, 567 U.S. at 155; Holowecki, 552 U.S. at\\n399; see Bible v. United Student Aid Funds, Inc., 799 F.3d 633, 663 (7th Cir.\\n\\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 15\\n\\n Patient and scientific professional organizations, as amici\\ncuriae, make a somewhat related, but distinct argument. They\\ninsist that because both the medical community6 and federal\\nand state policymakers7 understand obesity as a disease, obe-\\nsity is in and of itself a physiological disorder and therefore a\\n\\n\\n\\n2015) (Flaum, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment) (“[I]t\\nis generally appropriate to defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own\\nregulations, even when that interpretation is informally announced.”).\\nHere, however, neither the compliance manual nor EEOC’s litigation po-\\nsition are entitled to our deference. For one, the EEOC removed this para-\\ngraph from its compliance manual in 2012. See EEOC, Section 902 Defini-\\ntion of the Term Disability (2012), https://www.eeoc.gov/pol-\\nicy/docs/902cm.html. And more importantly, the EEOC’s position is in di-\\nrect conflict with the regulation because it considers extreme obesity a\\nphysical impairment even without evidence of an underlying physiologi-\\ncal disorder or condition. See Morriss, 817 F.3d at 1111 n.4, 1112.\\n 6 For example, the American Medical Association describes “obesity\\nas a disease state with multiple pathophysiological aspects requiring a\\nrange of interventions to advance obesity treatment and prevention.” Am.\\nMed. Assoc. House of Delegates, Recognition of Obesity as a Disease (2013),\\nhttps://www.npr.org/documents/2013/jun/ama-resolution-obesity.pdf.\\nLikewise, the World Health Organization concluded “obesity should be\\nconsidered a disease in its own right.” World Health Org., Obesity and\\nOverweight (2003), http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/me-\\ndia/en/gsfs_obesity.pdf. And the National Institutes of Health said “[o]be-\\nsity is a complex, multifactorial chronic disease.” Nat’l Insts. of Health,\\nClinical Guidelines on the Identification, Evaluation, and Treatment of Over-\\nweight and Obesity in Adults, at xi (1998),\\nhttps://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/files/docs/guidelines/ob_gdlns.pdf.\\n 7 For instance, the Internal Revenue Service decided an individual\\ncould deduct costs of a weight-loss program as a medical care expense\\nbecause he had “a disease, obesity,” I.R.S. Rev. Rul. 2002-19, 2002 WL\\n484628 (Apr. 2, 2002), and the Social Security Administration recognized\\nobesity as “a complex, chronic disease characterized by excessive accumu-\\n\\f16 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\n\\nphysical impairment within the definition of the ADA. This\\nargument is not persuasive. The ADA is an antidiscrimina-\\ntion—not a public health—statute, and Congress’s desires as\\nit relates to the ADA do not necessarily align with those of the\\nmedical community. Moreover, amici’s argument proves too\\nmuch; if we agreed that obesity is itself a physiological disor-\\nder, then all obesity would be an ADA impairment. While\\nRichardson does not ask us to hold that all obese individu-\\nals—found to be as high as 39.8% of the American adult pop-\\nulation8—automatically have an ADA impairment, adopting\\namici’s position leads to this unavoidable, nonrealistic result.\\n At bottom, Richardson does not present any evidence sug-\\ngesting an underlying physiological disorder or condition\\ncaused his extreme obesity.9 Without such evidence, we can-\\nnot call Richardson’s extreme obesity a physical impairment\\n\\n\\n\\nlation of body fat.” SSR 00-3p, 2000 WL 33952015 (May 15, 2000). Addi-\\ntionally, in 2017, the Senate passed by unanimous consent a resolution in\\nsupport of “National Obesity Care Week,” recognizing “the disease of\\nobesity,” S. Res. 325, 115th Cong. (2017), and in 2018, the National Lieu-\\ntenant Governors Association passed a resolution which called obesity “a\\nchronic disease.” Nat’l Lieutenant Governors Ass’n, Resolution in Support\\nof the Treatment and Prevention of Obesity (June 29, 2018),\\nhttps://www.nlga.us/wp-content/uploads/2018-Resolution-in-Support-\\nof-the-Prevention-and-Treatment-of-Obesity-2.pdf.\\n 8 See U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., Prevalence of Obesity Among\\n\\nAdults and Youth: United States, 2015–2016 (Oct. 2017),\\nhttps://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db288.pdf.\\n 9True, Richardson’s pulmonologist submitted a declaration stating\\nRichardson’s hypertension and sleep apnea were “related to” his obesity.\\nHowever, there is nothing in the record suggesting Richardson’s hyper-\\ntension or sleep apnea caused his obesity.\\n\\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 17\\n\\nwithin the meaning of the ADA and the EEOC regulation. See\\nMorriss, 817 F.3d at 1112; Watkins, 463 F.3d at 443.10\\n 2. Perceived Impairment\\n Alternatively, Richardson argues that even if we hold ex-\\ntreme obesity is not itself an impairment, he is still disabled\\nunder the ADA because CTA perceived his obesity to be a\\nphysical impairment. See 42 U.S.C. § 12102(3)(A). To succeed\\non this claim, Richardson must show CTA took adverse action\\nagainst him based on the belief that his condition was an im-\\npairment—as the ADA defines that term—not merely based\\non knowledge of Richardson’s physical characteristic. See\\nMorriss, 817 F.3d at 1113 (“[A]s a threshold matter, [the em-\\nployee] was required to show that [the employer] perceived\\nhis obesity to be a condition that met the definition of ‘physi-\\ncal impairment.’”); Francis, 129 F.3d at 285 (“[T]he plaintiff\\nmust allege that the employer believed, however erroneously,\\n\\n\\n 10 Richardson also suggests the fact that he “suffered from extreme\\nobesity … alone is sufficient … to establish that he meets the definition of\\n‘disability’ under the ADA.” Cf. Watkins, 463 F.3d at 443–45 & n.1 (Gib-\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2574,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4628924,"string":"4,628,924"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Bodum USA, Incorporated v. A Top New Casting Incorporated"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-06-12"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-3020"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before FLAUM, MANION, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Joel Martin Flaum\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18‐3020\\nBODUM USA, INCORPORATED,\\n Plaintiff‐Appellee,\\n v.\\n\\nA TOP NEW CASTING INCORPORATED,\\n Defendant‐Appellant.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 16‐cv‐02916 — Matthew F. Kennelly, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED MAY 30, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 12, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before FLAUM, MANION, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.\\n FLAUM, Circuit Judge. Bodum USA, Inc. (“Bodum”) pro‐\\nduces and sells what design magazines and art museums\\nhave recognized as an iconically designed houseware prod‐\\nuct—the Chambord French press coffeemaker. Bodum sued\\nA Top New Casting, Inc. (“A Top”) for selling a French press\\nthat Bodum claimed infringes on its unregistered trade dress\\nin the Chambord. After a five‐day trial, a jury returned a ver‐\\n\\f2 No. 18‐3020\\n\\ndict in favor of Bodum, finding that A Top had willfully in‐\\nfringed on Bodum’s trade dress in the Chambord and award‐\\ning Bodum $2 million in damages. The district court denied\\nA Top’s post‐trial motion for judgment as a matter of law, in\\nwhich A Top argued that Bodum failed to prove the Cham‐\\nbord design was nonfunctional. A Top also moved for a new\\ntrial because the court excluded evidence of various utility pa‐\\ntents covering French press coffeemakers; the district court\\ndenied this motion as well. We affirm.\\n I. Background\\n Plaintiff‐appellee Bodum has been selling French press\\ncoffeemakers since the 1970s. A French press is a nonelectric\\ncoffeemaker consisting of a cylindrical carafe and a plunger\\nattached to a filter screen. The user adds boiling water to cof‐\\nfee grounds in the carafe and, after the grounds have steeped,\\npresses the filter down slowly through the carafe to separate\\nthe used grounds from the brewed coffee.\\n Bodum began distributing the Chambord, its flagship\\nFrench press, in 1983. The Chambord’s design originated in\\nFrance in the 1930s and is based on the towers of the Cham‐\\nbord Chateau, a castle in France’s Loire Valley. Its features in‐\\nclude a metal cage with a band around the top of the carafe,\\nmetal pillars ending in four curved feet, a C‐shaped handle,\\nand a domed lid topped with a spherical knob. Bodum’s\\nChambord French press is pictured below:\\n\\fNo. 18‐3020 3\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Bodum acquired exclusive rights to distribute the Cham‐\\nbord in 1991 and has spent millions of dollars promoting it in\\nprint and television advertisements and at trade shows\\nworldwide. Bodum sells the Chambord in department stores,\\nat Starbucks coffee shops, and online, including through Am‐\\nazon. The Chambord design has been recognized as classic by\\nsuch institutions as Phaidon Design Classics and the Museum\\nof Modern Art. Bodum actively polices whatever it believes\\nto be infringement of this design; it has sent dozens of cease‐\\nand‐desist letters over the past twenty‐five years and has filed\\nlawsuits against alleged infringers when they did not stop\\nselling their products in response to Bodum’s requests.\\n In 2014, defendant‐appellant A Top began selling a com‐\\npeting French press coffeemaker called the SterlingPro exclu‐\\nsively through Amazon. The SterlingPro is similar in appear‐\\nance to the Chambord, with the same metal cage, metal pillars\\nending in curved feet, C‐shaped handle, and domed lid\\n\\f4 No. 18‐3020\\n\\ntopped with a spherical knob. The two coffeemakers are pic‐\\ntured side‐by‐side below, with the Chambord on the left and\\nthe SterlingPro on the right:\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Bodum filed a complaint against A Top in the Northern\\nDistrict of Illinois on March 7, 2016, bringing claims for trade\\ndress infringement under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.\\n§ 1125(a); common law unfair competition; and violation of\\nthe Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 815 Ill.\\nComp. Stat. § 510/1 et seq. According to Bodum’s complaint,\\nA Top intentionally adopted the overall appearance of the\\nChambord for its SterlingPro product, infringing on its unreg‐\\nistered trade dress in the design. A Top moved for summary\\njudgment on Bodum’s claims twice, but the district court de‐\\nnied these motions and the case proceeded to a jury trial on\\nMarch 28, 2018.\\n The jury returned a verdict in Bodum’s favor, finding that\\nA Top willfully infringed on Bodum’s Chambord trade dress\\nand awarding Bodum $2 million in damages. A Top timely\\nmoved for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of\\n\\fNo. 18‐3020 5\\n\\nCivil Procedure 50 and for a new trial under Rule 59. As rele‐\\nvant here, A Top claimed that it was entitled to judgment as a\\nmatter of law because Bodum had failed to prove its Cham‐\\nbord trade dress elements were nonfunctional. And A Top\\nsaid it was at least entitled to a new trial because the district\\ncourt erred in excluding evidence under Rule 403 of utility\\npatents that, it said, disclosed the Chambord’s trade dress fea‐\\ntures (demonstrating the functionality of those features). The\\ndistrict court denied both motions on June 6, 2018.\\n On August 21, 2018, the district court granted Bodum’s\\nmotion for enhanced damages, awarding prejudgment inter‐\\nest and doubling the damages award to $4 million, and it de‐\\nnied Bodum’s motion for attorney’s fees. Further, the court\\ngranted Bodum’s request for a permanent injunction to pre‐\\nvent A Top from continuing to sell its infringing SterlingPro\\nproducts. The district court entered final judgment on August\\n23, and A Top timely appealed.\\n II. Discussion\\n A Top pursues two arguments on appeal. First, A Top says\\nthat it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because\\nBodum did not meet its burden of demonstrating that the el‐\\nements of the claimed Chambord trade dress were nonfunc‐\\ntional (as required for it to be enforceable under the Lanham\\nAct). Second, A Top claims that it is entitled to a new trial be‐\\ncause the district court improperly excluded several utility\\npatents from evidence under Rule 403.\\n A. Functionality of the Chambord Trade Dress\\n We review de novo the denial of a Rule 50 motion for judg‐\\nment as a matter of law. Thorne v. Member Select Ins. Co., 882\\nF.3d 642, 644 (7th Cir. 2018). “Because a jury has rendered a\\n\\f6 No. 18‐3020\\n\\nverdict, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to\\nthat verdict.” Matthews v. Wis. Energy Corp., 642 F.3d 565, 567\\n(7th Cir. 2011). In our review, we do not make credibility de‐\\nterminations or reweigh the evidence; we need only deter‐\\nmine that there is more than “a mere scintilla of evidence” to\\nsupport the verdict. May v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 716 F.3d 963,\\n971 (7th Cir. 2013) (quoting Hossack v. Floor Covering Assoc. of\\nJoliet, Inc., 492 F.3d 853, 859 (7th Cir. 2007)). “In other words,\\nour job is to decide whether a highly charitable assessment of\\nthe evidence supports the jury’s verdict or if, instead, the jury\\nwas irrational to reach its conclusion.” Id.\\n The Lanham Act permits a civil action against any person\\nwho uses “any word, term, name, symbol, or device” “in con‐\\nnection with any goods or services” in a manner which “is\\nlikely to cause confusion” as to the source of those goods or\\nservices. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A). The Act’s protection ex‐\\ntends to a product’s trade dress, which includes a product de‐\\nsign that is so distinctive it identifies the product’s source. Ar‐\\nlington Specialties, Inc. v. Urban Aid, Inc., 847 F.3d 415, 418 (7th\\nCir. 2017); see also TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Mktg. Displays, Inc.,\\n532 U.S. 23, 28 (2001) (“The design or packaging of a product\\nmay acquire a distinctiveness which serves to identify the\\nproduct with its manufacturer or source; and a design or\\npackage which acquires this secondary meaning … is a trade\\ndress[.]”). As with any other trademark, infringement of a\\nproduct’s trade dress is actionable under the Act. Arlington\\nSpecialties, 847 F.3d at 418.\\n At trial, Bodum was required to prove a number of ele‐\\nments for the jury to find trade dress infringement—that it\\nowns a valid trade dress in the Chambord design, that the\\ntrade dress is not functional, and that A Top’s SterlingPro was\\n\\fNo. 18‐3020 7\\n\\nlikely to cause consumer confusion as to its source. See id. On\\nappeal, A Top does not dispute that the SterlingPro copies the\\nChambord. Instead, A Top only challenges Bodum’s proof on\\nthe functionality of its claimed trade dress.1\\n Trademark protection for trade dress, unlike patent and\\ncopyright protection, has no time limit; the Act therefore does\\nnot protect features that are necessary for the use of a product,\\nso as to prevent one competitor from maintaining a “perpet‐\\nual and exclusive right to a useful product feature.” Id. (citing\\nQualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co., 514 U.S. 159, 165 (1995)). The\\nSupreme Court has explained that “‘a product feature is func‐\\ntional,’ and cannot serve as a trademark, ‘if it is essential to\\nthe use or purpose of the article or if it affects the cost or qual‐\\nity of the article.’” Qualitex, 514 U.S. at 165 (quoting Inwood\\nLabs., Inc. v. Ives Labs., Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 850 n.10 (1982)). Even\\nif a claimed trade dress does not satisfy this first test, “it can\\nstill be functional if it is a ‘competitive necessity,’ that is, if its\\nexclusive use ‘would put competitors at a significant non‐rep‐\\nutation‐related disadvantage.’” Arlington Specialties, 847 F.3d\\nat 419 (quoting TrafFix Devices, 532 U.S. at 32–33)); see also Spe‐\\ncialized Seating, Inc. v. Greenwich Indus., LP, 616 F.3d 722, 727\\n(7th Cir. 2010) (a design is functional where a product “looks\\nthe way it does in order to be a better [product], not in order\\nto be a better way of identifying who made it”). Where, as\\nhere, the claimed trade dress is unregistered, it is the burden\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 1 In fact, at oral argument, A Top confirmed that it was not arguing\\nthat the SterlingPro did not copy the Chambord, but it instead argued that\\nit “had a right to copy, right down to the last bolt,” because Bodum did\\nnot have a valid trade dress in the Chambord.\\n\\f8 No. 18‐3020\\n\\nof the party asserting protection to prove that the trade dress\\nis not functional. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(3).\\n In deciding whether a trade dress element is functional,\\nwe consider several factors:\\n (1) the existence of a utility patent, expired or\\n unexpired, that involves or describes the func‐\\n tionality of an item’s design element; (2) the util‐\\n itarian properties of the item’s unpatented de‐\\n sign elements; (3) advertising of the item that\\n touts the utilitarian advantages of the item’s de‐\\n sign elements; (4) the dearth of, or difficulty in\\n creating, alternative designs for the item’s pur‐\\n pose; (5) the effect of the design feature on an\\n item’s quality or cost.\\nGa.–Pac. Consumer Prods. LP v. Kimberly–Clark Corp., 647 F.3d\\n723, 727–28 (7th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). No one factor is\\ndispositive. See id. at 728–31 (considering each factor sepa‐\\nrately to determine whether it weighs in favor of or against\\nfunctionality); Valu Eng’g, Inc. v. Rexnord Corp., 278 F.3d 1268,\\n1274–75 (Fed. Cir. 2002).\\n Bodum claims trade dress protection in the overall ap‐\\npearance of the Chambord and identifies the following spe‐\\ncific elements as contributing to that distinctive look: the\\nmetal band surrounding the carafe that forms support feet\\nand the handle attachment, the domed lid, the rounded knob\\natop the plunger, and the C‐shaped handle. See Comput. Care\\nv. Serv. Sys. Enters., Inc., 982 F.2d 1063, 1071 (7th Cir. 1992)\\n(where plaintiff seeks to protect overall appearance of its\\ntrade dress, focus of analysis is on that total appearance rather\\nthan individual design elements in isolation). Bodum does\\n\\fNo. 18‐3020 9\\n\\nnot claim a trade dress in the cylindrical carafe or the plunger,\\nas it acknowledges those elements are functional for a French\\npress coffeemaker.\\n A Top argues Bodum failed to establish that the claimed\\nChambord features are not essential to its use and that these\\nfeatures do not affect the coffeemaker’s cost or quality. How‐\\never, in its argument, A Top consistently elides the distinction\\nbetween a product’s “function” in the everyday meaning of\\nthe term and “functional” as a term of art used in trade dress\\nlaw. Bodum does not claim that any French press coffeemaker\\nwith a handle, a domed top, or metal around the carafe in‐\\nfringes on its trade dress. Rather, it is the overall appearance\\nof A Top’s SterlingPro, which has the same shaped handle, the\\nsame domed lid, the same shaped feet, the same rounded knob,\\nand the same shaped metal frame as the Chambord, that\\nBodum objects to. Thus, to establish it has a valid trade dress,\\nBodum did not have to prove that something like a handle\\ndoes not serve any function. It merely needed to prove that\\npreventing competitors from copying the Chambord’s partic‐\\nular design would not significantly disadvantage them from\\nproducing a competitive and cost‐efficient French press cof‐\\nfeemaker. See Arlington Specialties, 847 F.3d at 419.\\n When properly framed in this manner, Bodum presented\\nsufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that the\\nChambord’s overall look was nonfunctional. First, regarding\\nthe utilitarian properties of the Chambord’s design elements,\\nsee Ga.–Pac. Consumer Prods., 647 F.3d at 728, Bodum’s func‐\\ntionality expert Robert Anders testified about their nonutili‐\\ntarian nature. He testified that the only functional parts of the\\nChambord—the parts that are necessary to make French press\\ncoffee—are the plunger and cylindrical shape of the carafe. In\\n\\f10 No. 18‐3020\\n\\ncontrast, Mr. Anders did not believe the particular C‐shape of\\nthe Chambord’s handle worked better than an alternatively\\nshaped handle and, in fact, testified that he thought the C‐\\nshape was “not as ergonomically designed as it could be.” Mr.\\nAnders further testified that the dome‐shaped lid was an “ar‐\\nbitrary design” because the lid “could be of any shape” in or‐\\nder to work, and the metal frame is “absolutely not” necessary\\nfor the Chambord to make French press coffee.\\n A Top’s expert, Peter Bressler, agreed. He “didn’t see par‐\\nticularly great advantage in the design of the handle, but [he]\\nsaw an advantage in having a handle.” Whether it is more ad‐\\nvantageous for a French press to have a handle, however, is\\nnot the pertinent inquiry; the question is whether there is an\\nadvantage to having this designed handle, to which Mr. Bressler\\nagreed there is not. The same is true of the feet: Mr. Bressler\\ntestified he “didn’t see a particular advantage in the design of\\nthe feet, but [ ] saw the fact that it had feet, which, to [him],\\nwas a utilitarian advantage.” Again, this does not speak to\\nany advantages of the design of the feet. Overall, Mr. Bressler\\ntestified that “[t]he utilitarian advantages … are not that\\nclear.” This evidence weighs in favor of nonfunctionality be‐\\ncause it supports that the claimed Chambord features are\\n“merely ornamental” and are not necessary to make the\\nChambord work better as a French press coffeemaker. Arling‐\\nton Specialties, 847 F.3d at 420 (citation omitted).2\\n\\n\\n 2A Top points to two changes Bodum made to the Chambord in re‐\\nsponse to safety issues the United States Consumer Product Safety Com‐\\nmission raised—reducing the size of the knob and redesigning the lid to\\nfit deeper into the carafe—as evidence the knob and lid are functional.\\nHowever, Bodum could have reduced the size of the knob and made it a\\nflat disk or redesigned the deep‐fitting lid to be flat instead of domed\\n\\fNo. 18‐3020 11\\n\\n Next, A Top argues that Bodum admitted the Chambord\\ndesign was functional in its advertising and thus failed to\\nmeet its burden of proving nonfunctionality. See Ga.–Pac. Con‐\\nsumer Prods., 647 F.3d at 730 (advertising that touts the de‐\\nsign’s “utilitarian advantages” can weigh in favor of function‐\\nality). Indeed, Joergen Bodum, CEO of Bodum’s parent com‐\\npany, testified regarding Chambord advertisements describ‐\\ning the product as “functional” and about an interview he\\ngave in which he described Bodum’s products as “function‐\\ndriven.” However, he also explained that these references to\\nfunctionality were not invoking the term’s legal definition but\\nwere merely intended to convey that Bodum’s products work.\\nIn fact, Bodum’s advertising for the Chambord never claimed\\nany of its design features worked better than other options—\\nfor example, it never claimed the handle is an ergonomic\\nshape nor that its four curved feet provide stability. Rather,\\nthe advertising focused on the classic look of the Chambord\\ndesign. Thus, a reasonable jury could weigh this evidence\\nagainst a finding of functionality in the legal trade dress\\nsense.\\n Additionally, Bodum introduced a plethora of evidence\\nregarding the availability of alternative designs, which sup‐\\nported the Chambord’s lack of functionality. Id. It introduced\\nas trial exhibits competing manufacturers’ French presses fea‐\\nturing different design elements, including those made of dif‐\\nferent materials, with differently shaped handles, lids,\\nplunger knobs, and frames, those that do not have transpar‐\\nent carafes or do not have feet, and those with differently\\n\\nwhile still remedying these safety concerns. There is no evidence that the\\nappearance of the features as redesigned are necessary for a competitive\\nproduct, from a use (or cost) perspective.\\n\\f12 No. 18‐3020\\n\\nshaped external structures surrounding the cylindrical carafe.\\nSee Appellee Br. at 4 (pictures of alternatively designed\\nFrench presses introduced as trial exhibits). More im‐\\nportantly, Bodum introduced evidence that both it and A Top\\nsell French presses with alternative designs and made of dif‐\\nferent materials. Thus, there was ample evidence before the\\njury in Bodum’s favor on this factor.\\n Finally, we must consider the cost or quality advantage\\ntest of functionality. See TrafFix Devices, 532 U.S. at 32; see also\\nGa.–Pac. Consumer Prods., 647 F.3d at 731. Again, Bodum pre‐\\nsented sufficient evidence from which a jury could conclude\\nthat the Chambord’s design conferred no cost or quality ad‐\\nvantage that made it functional. Bodum’s expert, Mr. Anders,\\ntestified the Chambord design was “complex” and that there\\nare “simpler ways of doing this.” He explained the more com‐\\nplex the structure, the more expensive the product is to man‐\\nufacture, so he disagreed with A Top’s expert that the Cham‐\\nbord was the least expensive method to manufacture a French\\npress. Mr. Anders also explained that plastic is generally\\ncheaper to use than metal in manufacturing, so plastic‐framed\\nFrench presses would be cheaper to manufacture than the\\nmetal‐framed Chambord.\\n Joergen Bodum further supported Mr. Anders’s opinion\\nin his testimony regarding the many different French presses\\nBodum produces. For example, Bodum’s “Bistro” French\\npress does not have a metal frame, a domed lid, or a C‐shaped\\nhandle. Mr. Bodum testified that the Bistro is less expensive\\nto produce (“maybe less than half of what it costs to make a\\nChambord”) and less time‐consuming to produce because it\\nrequires less material than the Chambord. Although the Bis‐\\ntro was a successful first product for the company, Mr.\\n\\fNo. 18‐3020 13\\n\\nBodum testified he decided to produce the Chambord, a more\\ncomplex and expensive product, in addition to the Bistro be‐\\ncause he was interested in its iconic French design. Mr.\\nBodum also discussed the manufacturing costs to produce\\nBodum’s various French press coffeemakers. He explained\\nthat the Chambord is neither the cheapest nor the most expen‐\\nsive French press Bodum sells.3 Thus, Mr. Bodum’s testimony\\nsupported that the Chambord’s overall design conferred no\\nparticular cost advantage that made it functional.4\\n\\n 3 A Top repeatedly states in its brief that Mr. Bodum testified the\\nChambord provides a cost advantage. The trial testimony A Top cites for\\nthe proposition, however, does not support this assertion. Though Mr.\\nBodum did answer affirmatively that the Chambord design “gives a cost\\nadvantage in manufacturing over other types of French presses,” it is\\nabundantly clear from the surrounding answers that Mr. Bodum\\nmisspoke in answering this question. Immediately before this answer, Mr.\\nBodum explained that the Chambord is “one of the most expensive” cof‐\\nfeemakers to manufacture, and immediately after, Mr. Bodum confirmed\\nthat the Chambord’s design does not “result from the fact that it was so\\ninexpensive to manufacture.” A Top’s efforts to take Mr. Bodum’s mis‐\\nstatement as an admission are therefore unavailing.\\n 4 A Top relies on Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 786 F.3d 983\\n(Fed. Cir. 2015), rev’d and remanded on other grounds, 137 S. Ct. 429 (2016),\\nto argue that Bodum’s evidence regarding the relative costs of the materials\\nused to make the Chambord is irrelevant and, therefore, that Bodum in‐\\ntroduced nothing to show the Chambord is nonfunctional under the cost\\nadvantage test. Apple, a Federal Circuit case applying Ninth Circuit law,\\nis not controlling here, but in any event, it is distinguishable. In Apple, the\\nplaintiff argued that its unregistered trade dress in its product did not re‐\\nsult from a comparatively simple manufacturing process. Id. at 994. The\\nFederal Circuit, however, noted that the difficulties plaintiff encountered\\nin its manufacturing process resulted from its choice to use certain mate‐\\nrials to improve the durability (i.e., the function) of its product. Id. Thus,\\nthis evidence did not address any cost advantages or disadvantages of\\nplaintiff’s design. Id. Here, however, Bodum introduced evidence that\\n\\f14 No. 18‐3020\\n\\n Indeed, Jian Liang, A Top’s CEO, testified that A Top pro‐\\nduces another French press with a plastic frame that is less\\nexpensive than the metal SterlingPro. This testimony further\\ndemonstrates that the Chambord’s design does not provide a\\ncost advantage. Contrary to A Top’s argument, Bodum pro‐\\nvided evidence sufficient for the jury to conclude that the\\nChambord’s appearance is costlier to manufacture than to de‐\\nsign around, which supports that the Chambord trade dress\\nis not functional. See Thomas & Betts Corp. v. Panduit Corp., 138\\nF.3d 277, 297–98 (7th Cir. 1998).\\n Overall, looking at the evidence in the light most favorable\\nto the verdict, Bodum presented sufficient evidence for the\\njury to have found Bodum’s claimed trade dress was non‐\\nfunctional. We cannot say the jury was irrational to reach this\\nconclusion, so we affirm the denial of A Top’s motion for\\njudgment as a matter of law.\\n B. Exclusion of Utility Patents Evidence\\n A Top also appeals a related issue—the district court’s de‐\\ncision to exclude evidence of various utility patents, which\\nA Top contends demonstrate the functionality of the claimed\\nChambord trade dress features. A district court may exclude\\nrelevant evidence where its probative value is substantially\\noutweighed by, for example, a risk of unfair prejudice or con‐\\nfusing the issues. Fed. R. Evid. 403. We review evidentiary\\nrulings for abuse of discretion and will reverse “only if no rea‐\\nsonable person would agree with the district court’s view.”\\n\\n\\n\\nFrench presses can still function when made out of other materials, like\\nplastic, and that the metal and glass used for the Chambord design do not\\nconfer any particular cost or quality advantage for the product.\\n\\fNo. 18‐3020 15\\n\\nUnited States v. Proano, 912 F.3d 431, 438 (7th Cir. 2019). Fur‐\\nthermore, we accord Rule 403 determinations “‘special defer‐\\nence,’ because only ‘in an extreme case are appellate judges\\ncompetent to second‐guess the judgment of the person on the\\nspot, the trial judge.’” Id. at 440 (quoting United States v. Jack‐\\nson, 898 F.3d 760, 764 (7th Cir. 2018)).\\n As noted above, courts consider “the existence of a utility\\npatent, expired or unexpired, that involves or describes the\\nfunctionality of an item’s design element” in considering\\nwhether a claimed trade dress is functional. Ga.–Pac. Con‐\\nsumer Prods., 647 F.3d at 727–28.5 As the Supreme Court has\\nexplained, a utility patent is “strong evidence that the features\\ntherein claimed are functional.” TrafFix Devices, 532 U.S. at 29.\\nIn other words, “if the ‘central advance’ claimed in the utility\\npatent matches the ‘essential feature’ of the trademark, there\\nis strong evidence that the design is functional.” Ga.–Pac. Con‐\\nsumer Prods., 647 F.3d at 728 (quoting TrafFix Devices, 532 U.S.\\nat 30).\\n Evidence of utility patents came up during Mr. Anders’s\\nexamination. On direct examination, Bodum asked Mr. An‐\\nders a total of seven questions about utility patents and\\nshowed him one patent that A Top’s expert had cited in his\\nreport. Mr. Anders testified that, though a utility patent\\nclaiming a feature is evidence that this feature is functional in\\nthe trade dress sense, he did not find any utility patents cov‐\\nering the Chambord trade dress features. He believed the pa‐\\n\\n\\n\\n 5 A utility patent covers “any new and useful process, machine, man‐\\nufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement\\nthereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.\\n\\f16 No. 18‐3020\\n\\ntent A Top’s expert cited only disclosed the plunger rod en‐\\ngaging with the cylindrical walls of the carafe, which Mr. An‐\\nders explained is a feature in all French presses and has no\\nbearing on the Chambord trade dress.\\n On cross examination, A Top asked Mr. Anders many ad‐\\nditional questions about patents and showed him approxi‐\\nmately ten utility patents. A Top questioned Mr. Anders\\nabout whether the patents disclosed the same elements\\nBodum claims as part of the Chambord trade dress—a domed\\nlid, a handle, and a circular knob atop the plunger. However,\\ncounsel only provided Mr. Anders with the pictures from the\\npatents, not the portion of the patents explaining the claims.\\nMr. Anders testified that he believed utility patents describe\\nthe claims in words, not in the illustrations, so he would not\\nagree the patents disclosed any elements of the Chambord\\ntrade dress based solely on a review of the pictures.\\n Bodum’s counsel objected to the admission of the patents\\nas evidence. The court provisionally admitted the patents for\\nBodum’s redirect examination of Mr. Anders and then heard\\narguments on the objection at the next break in the trial.\\nBodum argued the patents A Top sought to have admitted\\nwere irrelevant because they were not patents for any Bodum\\nor A Top product and were not patents of identical designs.\\nBodum also argued the proposed exhibits were incomplete as\\nthey were only a portion of the patents. The district court re‐\\nquested briefing on the issue of whether utility patents for\\nsimilar but not identical products are relevant to the question\\nof functionality and requested complete copies of each patent.\\n After reviewing the parties’ arguments and the entire pa‐\\ntents, the district court excluded them from evidence. The\\ncourt explained it did not matter that the patents were for\\n\\fNo. 18‐3020 17\\n\\nother parties’ products but it did matter whether the features\\nBodum claimed as part of its trade dress were disclosed in the\\npatents. The court asked A Top to point to language in any of\\nthe patents it sought to admit that claimed as part of the pa‐\\ntent “any of the features that [Bodum] says are part of its trade\\ndress.” A Top could not, however, find any such language.\\nThough it continued to insist the patents described knobs and\\ndomed lids, it could not point to any language in the patents\\nto support this contention. The patent A Top claimed “most\\nilluminating” described: “The system of Claim 1 or the cover\\nmeans comprising removable cover for the drinking vessel\\nadapted to fit over the top of the vessel, having an opening\\nthrough which the push rod extends the sliding movement\\nrelative to the cover.”6 But A Top was unable to point to a\\nsingle patent that claimed a domed lid, a C‐shaped handle, feet\\non the bottom of the carafe, or a metallic castle‐shaped cage—\\nthe design elements Bodum claims as its trade dress.\\n The district court reviewed the jury instruction on\\nwhether a patent discloses the “practical advantages” of the\\ndesign and explained that TrafFix Devices requires that the pa‐\\ntent somewhere (not necessarily in the claims portion of the\\npatent) claim the trade dress features in some “significant\\nway.” Here, none of the patents did so. Though some of the\\nFrench presses in the patent pictures had a handle, feet, or\\nsomething on top of the plunger, the court did not think that\\n“bears on the question of whether it’s functional as … trade\\ndress law defines that term.” The court elaborated:\\n\\n\\n\\n 6 During argument on the objection, A Top described this as the Banks\\n\\npatent, 5,618,570, which does not appear to be in the record and is not\\nmentioned in either party’s appellate briefs.\\n\\f18 No. 18‐3020\\n\\n [T]here is a massive potential for jury confusion\\n here if these things are used in the way, frankly,\\n that they were used during the cross‐examina‐\\n tion of the [ ] expert. You put a picture up there,\\n that’s got a handle, it’s got a knob, it’s got a\\n plunger, it’s cylindrical like yours, that’s not\\n what the inquiry is. The inquiry isn’t whether\\n somebody has drawn this picture before. The\\n inquiry is whether … the features are claimed in\\n a patent in a way that shows that they have\\n some sort of a function.\\n The court then concluded: “I don’t think it’s relevant. If it’s\\nrelevant, it has teeny teeny probative value, massive potential\\nfor jury confusion. It’s excluded under Rule 403.” The court\\ndid not permit A Top to use the patent evidence with its ex‐\\npert and gave the jury a curative instruction: “During the\\ncross‐examination of witness Robert Anders, he was shown\\ncertain pages from certain patents. I have excluded those pa‐\\ntents from the evidence in this case. You are not to consider\\nthem for any purpose.”\\n The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding\\nthis evidence. The patents A Top sought to introduce do not\\nclaim any of the features that comprise the claimed Cham‐\\nbord trade dress. See TrafFix Devices, 532 U.S. at 29 (utility pa‐\\ntents are evidence “that the features therein claimed are func‐\\ntional” (emphasis added)). That the patents disclose a plunger\\nand cylindrical carafe are irrelevant because Bodum does not\\nclaim those elements as part of its trade dress. And the pic‐\\ntures in the patents showing French presses with handles,\\ndomed lids, or knobs are irrelevant to the legal question of\\nfunctionality because the patents do not claim any of those\\n\\fNo. 18‐3020 19\\n\\nfeatures as part of the patented invention. Permitting the jury\\nto view and consider the patents would cause confusion as to\\nthe appropriate inquiry for functionality.\\n A Top also claims that whether a patent discloses a fea‐\\nture’s utility is a question of fact for the jury and, as such, the\\ndistrict court erred in excluding the patents from the jury’s\\nconsideration. In Thomas & Betts, we explained that a “utility\\npatent must be examined in detail to determine whether or\\nnot the disclosed configuration is really primarily functional\\nor just incidentally appears in the disclosure of a patent.” 138\\nF.3d at 300 (quoting J. Thomas McCarthy, 1 McCarthy on\\nTrademarks and Unfair Competition § 6:10 (4th ed. 1996)).\\nThere, the district court determined at summary judgment\\nthat because the claimed feature was part of a patent and did\\nnot appear incidentally, it was primarily a functional feature.\\nId. On appeal, we determined that this conclusion “necessi‐\\ntated a weighing of the evidence,” so a jury should have had\\nthe opportunity to decide how much weight to give the patent\\nconsidering all the other evidence presented on the function‐\\nality issue. Id. The district court’s decision here is consistent\\nwith Thomas & Betts. The court excluded the evidence under\\nRule 403, an evidentiary rule that tasks the judge with balanc‐\\ning the exclusion of relevant evidence with the risk of harm\\nfrom admission. The district court did not decide the func‐\\ntionality question; it determined that the patent evidence,\\nwhile relevant to the question of functionality, posed too sig‐\\nnificant a risk of jury confusion (an issue not raised by the pa‐\\ntent evidence in Thomas & Betts).\\n This is not one of those extreme cases in which we second‐\\nguess the trial judge’s weighing of the probative value of the\\nevidence with the potential for jury confusion on a Rule 403\\n\\f20 No. 18‐3020\\n\\nissue. We affirm the court’s denial of A Top’s motion for a\\nnew trial.7\\n III. Conclusion\\n For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the\\ndistrict court.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 7In its opening brief, A Top cites to the standard of review for a mo‐\\ntion for a new trial based on improper jury instructions. However, A Top\\ndoes not develop an argument based on any problem with the court’s in‐\\nstructions, and so we do not address this issue. See Ienco v. Angarone, 429\\nF.3d 680, 685 (7th Cir. 2005).\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4406177/\", \"author_raw\": \"Joel Martin Flaum\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"FLAUM"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"MANION"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"BARRETT"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"FLAUM\": \", Circuit\", \"MANION\": \", Circuit\", \"BARRETT\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4628924/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":6,"string":"6"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Bodum USA, Incorporated v. A Top New Casting Incorporated\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-06-12\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18‐3020\nBODUM USA, INCORPORATED,\n Plaintiff‐Appellee,\n v.\n\nA TOP NEW CASTING INCORPORATED,\n Defendant‐Appellant.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 16‐cv‐02916 — Matthew F. Kennelly, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED MAY 30, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 12, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before FLAUM, MANION, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.\n FLAUM, Circuit Judge. Bodum USA, Inc. (“Bodum”) pro‐\nduces and sells what design magazines and art museums\nhave recognized as an iconically designed houseware prod‐\nuct—the Chambord French press coffeemaker. Bodum sued\nA Top New Casting, Inc. (“A Top”) for selling a French press\nthat Bodum claimed infringes on its unregistered trade dress\nin the Chambord. After a five‐day trial, a jury returned a ver‐\n\f2 No. 18‐3020\n\ndict in favor of Bodum, finding that A Top had willfully in‐\nfringed on Bodum’s trade dress in the Chambord and award‐\ning Bodum $2 million in damages. The district court denied\nA Top’s post‐trial motion for judgment as a matter of law, in\nwhich A Top argued that Bodum failed to prove the Cham‐\nbord design was nonfunctional. A Top also moved for a new\ntrial because the court excluded evidence of various utility pa‐\ntents covering French press coffeemakers; the district court\ndenied this motion as well. We affirm.\n I. Background\n Plaintiff‐appellee Bodum has been selling French press\ncoffeemakers since the 1970s. A French press is a nonelectric\ncoffeemaker consisting of a cylindrical carafe and a plunger\nattached to a filter screen. The user adds boiling water to cof‐\nfee grounds in the carafe and, after the grounds have steeped,\npresses the filter down slowly through the carafe to separate\nthe used grounds from the brewed coffee.\n Bodum began distributing the Chambord, its flagship\nFrench press, in 1983. The Chambord’s design originated in\nFrance in the 1930s and is based on the towers of the Cham‐\nbord Chateau, a castle in France’s Loire Valley. Its features in‐\nclude a metal cage with a band around the top of the carafe,\nmetal pillars ending in four curved feet, a C‐shaped handle,\nand a domed lid topped with a spherical knob. Bodum’s\nChambord French press is pictured below:\n\fNo. 18‐3020 3\n\n\n\n\n Bodum acquired exclusive rights to distribute the Cham‐\nbord in 1991 and has spent millions of dollars promoting it in\nprint and television advertisements and at trade shows\nworldwide. Bodum sells the Chambord in department stores,\nat Starbucks coffee shops, and online, including through Am‐\nazon. The Chambord design has been recognized as classic by\nsuch institutions as Phaidon Design Classics and the Museum\nof Modern Art. Bodum actively polices whatever it believes\nto be infringement of this design; it has sent dozens of cease‐\nand‐desist letters over the past twenty‐five years and has filed\nlawsuits against alleged infringers when they did not stop\nselling their products in response to Bodum’s requests.\n In 2014, defendant‐appellant A Top began selling a com‐\npeting French press coffeemaker called the SterlingPro exclu‐\nsively through Amazon. The SterlingPro is similar in appear‐\nance to the Chambord, with the same metal cage, metal pillars\nending in curved feet, C‐shaped handle, and domed lid\n\f4 No. 18‐3020\n\ntopped with a spherical knob. The two coffeemakers are pic‐\ntured side‐by‐side below, with the Chambord on the left and\nthe SterlingPro on the right:\n\n\n\n\n Bodum filed a complaint against A Top in the Northern\nDistrict of Illinois on March 7, 2016, bringing claims for trade\ndress infringement under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.\n§ 1125(a); common law unfair competition; and violation of\nthe Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 815 Ill.\nComp. Stat. § 510/1 et seq. According to Bodum’s complaint,\nA Top intentionally adopted the overall appearance of the\nChambord for its SterlingPro product, infringing on its unreg‐\nistered trade dress in the design. A Top moved for summary\njudgment on Bodum’s claims twice, but the district court de‐\nnied these motions and the case proceeded to a jury trial on\nMarch 28, 2018.\n The jury returned a verdict in Bodum’s favor, finding that\nA Top willfully infringed on Bodum’s Chambord trade dress\nand awarding Bodum $2 million in damages. A Top timely\nmoved for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of\n\fNo. 18‐3020 5\n\nCivil Procedure 50 and for a new trial under Rule 59. As rele‐\nvant here, A Top claimed that it was entitled to judgment as a\nmatter of law because Bodum had failed to prove its Cham‐\nbord trade dress elements were nonfunctional. And A Top\nsaid it was at least entitled to a new trial because the district\ncourt erred in excluding evidence under Rule 403 of utility\npatents that, it said, disclosed the Chambord’s trade dress fea‐\ntures (demonstrating the functionality of those features). The\ndistrict court denied both motions on June 6, 2018.\n On August 21, 2018, the district court granted Bodum’s\nmotion for enhanced damages, awarding prejudgment inter‐\nest and doubling the damages award to $4 million, and it de‐\nnied Bodum’s motion for attorney’s fees. Further, the court\ngranted Bodum’s request for a permanent injunction to pre‐\nvent A Top from continuing to sell its infringing SterlingPro\nproducts. The district court entered final judgment on August\n23, and A Top timely appealed.\n II. Discussion\n A Top pursues two arguments on appeal. First, A Top says\nthat it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because\nBodum did not meet its burden of demonstrating that the el‐\nements of the claimed Chambord trade dress were nonfunc‐\ntional (as required for it to be enforceable under the Lanham\nAct). Second, A Top claims that it is entitled to a new trial be‐\ncause the district court improperly excluded several utility\npatents from evidence under Rule 403.\n A. Functionality of the Chambord Trade Dress\n We review de novo the denial of a Rule 50 motion for judg‐\nment as a matter of law. Thorne v. Member Select Ins. Co., 882\nF.3d 642, 644 (7th Cir. 2018). “Because a jury has rendered a\n\f6 No. 18‐3020\n\nverdict, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to\nthat verdict.” Matthews v. Wis. Energy Corp., 642 F.3d 565, 567\n(7th Cir. 2011). In our review, we do not make credibility de‐\nterminations or reweigh the evidence; we need only deter‐\nmine that there is more than “a mere scintilla of evidence” to\nsupport the verdict. May v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 716 F.3d 963,\n971 (7th Cir. 2013) (quoting Hossack v. Floor Covering Assoc. of\nJoliet, Inc., 492 F.3d 853, 859 (7th Cir. 2007)). “In other words,\nour job is to decide whether a highly charitable assessment of\nthe evidence supports the jury’s verdict or if, instead, the jury\nwas irrational to reach its conclusion.” Id.\n The Lanham Act permits a civil action against any person\nwho uses “any word, term, name, symbol, or device” “in con‐\nnection with any goods or services” in a manner which “is\nlikely to cause confusion” as to the source of those goods or\nservices. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A). The Act’s protection ex‐\ntends to a product’s trade dress, which includes a product de‐\nsign that is so distinctive it identifies the product’s source. Ar‐\nlington Specialties, Inc. v. Urban Aid, Inc., 847 F.3d 415, 418 (7th\nCir. 2017); see also TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Mktg. Displays, Inc.,\n532 U.S. 23, 28 (2001) (“The design or packaging of a product\nmay acquire a distinctiveness which serves to identify the\nproduct with its manufacturer or source; and a design or\npackage which acquires this secondary meaning … is a trade\ndress[.]”). As with any other trademark, infringement of a\nproduct’s trade dress is actionable under the Act. Arlington\nSpecialties, 847 F.3d at 418.\n At trial, Bodum was required to prove a number of ele‐\nments for the jury to find trade dress infringement—that it\nowns a valid trade dress in the Chambord design, that the\ntrade dress is not functional, and that A Top’s SterlingPro was\n\fNo. 18‐3020 7\n\nlikely to cause consumer confusion as to its source. See id. On\nappeal, A Top does not dispute that the SterlingPro copies the\nChambord. Instead, A Top only challenges Bodum’s proof on\nthe functionality of its claimed trade dress.1\n Trademark protection for trade dress, unlike patent and\ncopyright protection, has no time limit; the Act therefore does\nnot protect features that are necessary for the use of a product,\nso as to prevent one competitor from maintaining a “perpet‐\nual and exclusive right to a useful product feature.” Id. (citing\nQualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co., 514 U.S. 159, 165 (1995)). The\nSupreme Court has explained that “‘a product feature is func‐\ntional,’ and cannot serve as a trademark, ‘if it is essential to\nthe use or purpose of the article or if it affects the cost or qual‐\nity of the article.’” Qualitex, 514 U.S. at 165 (quoting Inwood\nLabs., Inc. v. Ives Labs., Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 850 n.10 (1982)). Even\nif a claimed trade dress does not satisfy this first test, “it can\nstill be functional if it is a ‘competitive necessity,’ that is, if its\nexclusive use ‘would put competitors at a significant non‐rep‐\nutation‐related disadvantage.’” Arlington Specialties, 847 F.3d\nat 419 (quoting TrafFix Devices, 532 U.S. at 32–33)); see also Spe‐\ncialized Seating, Inc. v. Greenwich Indus., LP, 616 F.3d 722, 727\n(7th Cir. 2010) (a design is functional where a product “looks\nthe way it does in order to be a better [product], not in order\nto be a better way of identifying who made it”). Where, as\nhere, the claimed trade dress is unregistered, it is the burden\n\n\n\n\n 1 In fact, at oral argument, A Top confirmed that it was not arguing\nthat the SterlingPro did not copy the Chambord, but it instead argued that\nit “had a right to copy, right down to the last bolt,” because Bodum did\nnot have a valid trade dress in the Chambord.\n\f8 No. 18‐3020\n\nof the party asserting protection to prove that the trade dress\nis not functional. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(3).\n In deciding whether a trade dress element is functional,\nwe consider several factors:\n (1) the existence of a utility patent, expired or\n unexpired, that involves or describes the func‐\n tionality of an item’s design element; (2) the util‐\n itarian properties of the item’s unpatented de‐\n sign elements; (3) advertising of the item that\n touts the utilitarian advantages of the item’s de‐\n sign elements; (4) the dearth of, or difficulty in\n creating, alternative designs for the item’s pur‐\n pose; (5) the effect of the design feature on an\n item’s quality or cost.\nGa.–Pac. Consumer Prods. LP v. Kimberly–Clark Corp., 647 F.3d\n723, 727–28 (7th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). No one factor is\ndispositive. See id. at 728–31 (considering each factor sepa‐\nrately to determine whether it weighs in favor of or against\nfunctionality); Valu Eng’g, Inc. v. Rexnord Corp., 278 F.3d 1268,\n1274–75 (Fed. Cir. 2002).\n Bodum claims trade dress protection in the overall ap‐\npearance of the Chambord and identifies the following spe‐\ncific elements as contributing to that distinctive look: the\nmetal band surrounding the carafe that forms support feet\nand the handle attachment, the domed lid, the rounded knob\natop the plunger, and the C‐shaped handle. See Comput. Care\nv. Serv. Sys. Enters., Inc., 982 F.2d 1063, 1071 (7th Cir. 1992)\n(where plaintiff seeks to protect overall appearance of its\ntrade dress, focus of analysis is on that total appearance rather\nthan individual design elements in isolation). Bodum does\n\fNo. 18‐3020 9\n\nnot claim a trade dress in the cylindrical carafe or the plunger,\nas it acknowledges those elements are functional for a French\npress coffeemaker.\n A Top argues Bodum failed to establish that the claimed\nChambord features are not essential to its use and that these\nfeatures do not affect the coffeemaker’s cost or quality. How‐\never, in its argument, A Top consistently elides the distinction\nbetween a product’s “function” in the everyday meaning of\nthe term and “functional” as a term of art used in trade dress\nlaw. Bodum does not claim that any French press coffeemaker\nwith a handle, a domed top, or metal around the carafe in‐\nfringes on its trade dress. Rather, it is the overall appearance\nof A Top’s SterlingPro, which has the same shaped handle, the\nsame domed lid, the same shaped feet, the same rounded knob,\nand the same shaped metal frame as the Chambord, that\nBodum objects to. Thus, to establish it has a valid trade dress,\nBodum did not have to prove that something like a handle\ndoes not serve any function. It merely needed to prove that\npreventing competitors from copying the Chambord’s partic‐\nular design would not significantly disadvantage them from\nproducing a competitive and cost‐efficient French press cof‐\nfeemaker. See Arlington Specialties, 847 F.3d at 419.\n When properly framed in this manner, Bodum presented\nsufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that the\nChambord’s overall look was nonfunctional. First, regarding\nthe utilitarian properties of the Chambord’s design elements,\nsee Ga.–Pac. Consumer Prods., 647 F.3d at 728, Bodum’s func‐\ntionality expert Robert Anders testified about their nonutili‐\ntarian nature. He testified that the only functional parts of the\nChambord—the parts that are necessary to make French press\ncoffee—are the plunger and cylindrical shape of the carafe. In\n\f10 No. 18‐3020\n\ncontrast, Mr. Anders did not believe the particular C‐shape of\nthe Chambord’s handle worked better than an alternatively\nshaped handle and, in fact, testified that he thought the C‐\nshape was “not as ergonomically designed as it could be.” Mr.\nAnders further testified that the dome‐shaped lid was an “ar‐\nbitrary design” because the lid “could be of any shape” in or‐\nder to work, and the metal frame is “absolutely not” necessary\nfor the Chambord to make French press coffee.\n A Top’s expert, Peter Bressler, agreed. He “didn’t see par‐\nticularly great advantage in the design of the handle, but [he]\nsaw an advantage in having a handle.” Whether it is more ad‐\nvantageous for a French press to have a handle, however, is\nnot the pertinent inquiry; the question is whether there is an\nadvantage to having this designed handle, to which Mr. Bressler\nagreed there is not. The same is true of the feet: Mr. Bressler\ntestified he “didn’t see a particular advantage in the design of\nthe feet, but [ ] saw the fact that it had feet, which, to [him],\nwas a utilitarian advantage.” Again, this does not speak to\nany advantages of the design of the feet. Overall, Mr. Bressler\ntestified that “[t]he utilitarian advantages … are not that\nclear.” This evidence weighs in favor of nonfunctionality be‐\ncause it supports that the claimed Chambord features are\n“merely ornamental” and are not necessary to make the\nChambord work better as a French press coffeemaker. Arling‐\nton Specialties, 847 F.3d at 420 (citation omitted).2\n\n\n 2A Top points to two changes Bodum made to the Chambord in re‐\nsponse to safety issues the United States Consumer Product Safety Com‐\nmission raised—reducing the size of the knob and redesigning the lid to\nfit deeper into the carafe—as evidence the knob and lid are functional.\nHowever, Bodum could have reduced the size of the knob and made it a\nflat disk or redesigned the deep‐fitting lid to be flat instead of domed\n\fNo. 18‐3020 11\n\n Next, A Top argues that Bodum admitted the Chambord\ndesign was functional in its advertising and thus failed to\nmeet its burden of proving nonfunctionality. See Ga.–Pac. Con‐\nsumer Prods., 647 F.3d at 730 (advertising that touts the de‐\nsign’s “utilitarian advantages” can weigh in favor of function‐\nality). Indeed, Joergen Bodum, CEO of Bodum’s parent com‐\npany, testified regarding Chambord advertisements describ‐\ning the product as “functional” and about an interview he\ngave in which he described Bodum’s products as “function‐\ndriven.” However, he also explained that these references to\nfunctionality were not invoking the term’s legal definition but\nwere merely intended to convey that Bodum’s products work.\nIn fact, Bodum’s advertising for the Chambord never claimed\nany of its design features worked better than other options—\nfor example, it never claimed the handle is an ergonomic\nshape nor that its four curved feet provide stability. Rather,\nthe advertising focused on the classic look of the Chambord\ndesign. Thus, a reasonable jury could weigh this evidence\nagainst a finding of functionality in the legal trade dress\nsense.\n Additionally, Bodum introduced a plethora of evidence\nregarding the availability of alternative designs, which sup‐\nported the Chambord’s lack of functionality. Id. It introduced\nas trial exhibits competing manufacturers’ French presses fea‐\nturing different design elements, including those made of dif‐\nferent materials, with differently shaped handles, lids,\nplunger knobs, and frames, those that do not have transpar‐\nent carafes or do not have feet, and those with differently\n\nwhile still remedying these safety concerns. There is no evidence that the\nappearance of the features as redesigned are necessary for a competitive\nproduct, from a use (or cost) perspective.\n\f12 No. 18‐3020\n\nshaped external structures surrounding the cylindrical carafe.\nSee Appellee Br. at 4 (pictures of alternatively designed\nFrench presses introduced as trial exhibits). More im‐\nportantly, Bodum introduced evidence that both it and A Top\nsell French presses with alternative designs and made of dif‐\nferent materials. Thus, there was ample evidence before the\njury in Bodum’s favor on this factor.\n Finally, we must consider the cost or quality advantage\ntest of functionality. See TrafFix Devices, 532 U.S. at 32; see also\nGa.–Pac. Consumer Prods., 647 F.3d at 731. Again, Bodum pre‐\nsented sufficient evidence from which a jury could conclude\nthat the Chambord’s design conferred no cost or quality ad‐\nvantage that made it functional. Bodum’s expert, Mr. Anders,\ntestified the Chambord design was “complex” and that there\nare “simpler ways of doing this.” He explained the more com‐\nplex the structure, the more expensive the product is to man‐\nufacture, so he disagreed with A Top’s expert that the Cham‐\nbord was the least expensive method to manufacture a French\npress. Mr. Anders also explained that plastic is generally\ncheaper to use than metal in manufacturing, so plastic‐framed\nFrench presses would be cheaper to manufacture than the\nmetal‐framed Chambord.\n Joergen Bodum further supported Mr. Anders’s opinion\nin his testimony regarding the many different French presses\nBodum produces. For example, Bodum’s “Bistro” French\npress does not have a metal frame, a domed lid, or a C‐shaped\nhandle. Mr. Bodum testified that the Bistro is less expensive\nto produce (“maybe less than half of what it costs to make a\nChambord”) and less time‐consuming to produce because it\nrequires less material than the Chambord. Although the Bis‐\ntro was a successful first product for the company, Mr.\n\fNo. 18‐3020 13\n\nBodum testified he decided to produce the Chambord, a more\ncomplex and expensive product, in addition to the Bistro be‐\ncause he was interested in its iconic French design. Mr.\nBodum also discussed the manufacturing costs to produce\nBodum’s various French press coffeemakers. He explained\nthat the Chambord is neither the cheapest nor the most expen‐\nsive French press Bodum sells.3 Thus, Mr. Bodum’s testimony\nsupported that the Chambord’s overall design conferred no\nparticular cost advantage that made it functional.4\n\n 3 A Top repeatedly states in its brief that Mr. Bodum testified the\nChambord provides a cost advantage. The trial testimony A Top cites for\nthe proposition, however, does not support this assertion. Though Mr.\nBodum did answer affirmatively that the Chambord design “gives a cost\nadvantage in manufacturing over other types of French presses,” it is\nabundantly clear from the surrounding answers that Mr. Bodum\nmisspoke in answering this question. Immediately before this answer, Mr.\nBodum explained that the Chambord is “one of the most expensive” cof‐\nfeemakers to manufacture, and immediately after, Mr. Bodum confirmed\nthat the Chambord’s design does not “result from the fact that it was so\ninexpensive to manufacture.” A Top’s efforts to take Mr. Bodum’s mis‐\nstatement as an admission are therefore unavailing.\n 4 A Top relies on Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 786 F.3d 983\n(Fed. Cir. 2015), rev’d and remanded on other grounds, 137 S. Ct. 429 (2016),\nto argue that Bodum’s evidence regarding the relative costs of the materials\nused to make the Chambord is irrelevant and, therefore, that Bodum in‐\ntroduced nothing to show the Chambord is nonfunctional under the cost\nadvantage test. Apple, a Federal Circuit case applying Ninth Circuit law,\nis not controlling here, but in any event, it is distinguishable. In Apple, the\nplaintiff argued that its unregistered trade dress in its product did not re‐\nsult from a comparatively simple manufacturing process. Id. at 994. The\nFederal Circuit, however, noted that the difficulties plaintiff encountered\nin its manufacturing process resulted from its choice to use certain mate‐\nrials to improve the durability (i.e., the function) of its product. Id. Thus,\nthis evidence did not address any cost advantages or disadvantages of\nplaintiff’s design. Id. Here, however, Bodum introduced evidence that\n\f14 No. 18‐3020\n\n Indeed, Jian Liang, A Top’s CEO, testified that A Top pro‐\nduces another French press with a plastic frame that is less\nexpensive than the metal SterlingPro. This testimony further\ndemonstrates that the Chambord’s design does not provide a\ncost advantage. Contrary to A Top’s argument, Bodum pro‐\nvided evidence sufficient for the jury to conclude that the\nChambord’s appearance is costlier to manufacture than to de‐\nsign around, which supports that the Chambord trade dress\nis not functional. See Thomas & Betts Corp. v. Panduit Corp., 138\nF.3d 277, 297–98 (7th Cir. 1998).\n Overall, looking at the evidence in the light most favorable\nto the verdict, Bodum presented sufficient evidence for the\njury to have found Bodum’s claimed trade dress was non‐\nfunctional. We cannot say the jury was irrational to reach this\nconclusion, so we affirm the denial of A Top’s motion for\njudgment as a matter of law.\n B. Exclusion of Utility Patents Evidence\n A Top also appeals a related issue—the district court’s de‐\ncision to exclude evidence of various utility patents, which\nA Top contends demonstrate the functionality of the claimed\nChambord trade dress features. A district court may exclude\nrelevant evidence where its probative value is substantially\noutweighed by, for example, a risk of unfair prejudice or con‐\nfusing the issues. Fed. R. Evid. 403. We review evidentiary\nrulings for abuse of discretion and will reverse “only if no rea‐\nsonable person would agree with the district court’s view.”\n\n\n\nFrench presses can still function when made out of other materials, like\nplastic, and that the metal and glass used for the Chambord design do not\nconfer any particular cost or quality advantage for the product.\n\fNo. 18‐3020 15\n\nUnited States v. Proano, 912 F.3d 431, 438 (7th Cir. 2019). Fur‐\nthermore, we accord Rule 403 determinations “‘special defer‐\nence,’ because only ‘in an extreme case are appellate judges\ncompetent to second‐guess the judgment of the person on the\nspot, the trial judge.’” Id. at 440 (quoting United States v. Jack‐\nson, 898 F.3d 760, 764 (7th Cir. 2018)).\n As noted above, courts consider “the existence of a utility\npatent, expired or unexpired, that involves or describes the\nfunctionality of an item’s design element” in considering\nwhether a claimed trade dress is functional. Ga.–Pac. Con‐\nsumer Prods., 647 F.3d at 727–28.5 As the Supreme Court has\nexplained, a utility patent is “strong evidence that the features\ntherein claimed are functional.” TrafFix Devices, 532 U.S. at 29.\nIn other words, “if the ‘central advance’ claimed in the utility\npatent matches the ‘essential feature’ of the trademark, there\nis strong evidence that the design is functional.” Ga.–Pac. Con‐\nsumer Prods., 647 F.3d at 728 (quoting TrafFix Devices, 532 U.S.\nat 30).\n Evidence of utility patents came up during Mr. Anders’s\nexamination. On direct examination, Bodum asked Mr. An‐\nders a total of seven questions about utility patents and\nshowed him one patent that A Top’s expert had cited in his\nreport. Mr. Anders testified that, though a utility patent\nclaiming a feature is evidence that this feature is functional in\nthe trade dress sense, he did not find any utility patents cov‐\nering the Chambord trade dress features. He believed the pa‐\n\n\n\n 5 A utility patent covers “any new and useful process, machine, man‐\nufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement\nthereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.\n\f16 No. 18‐3020\n\ntent A Top’s expert cited only disclosed the plunger rod en‐\ngaging with the cylindrical walls of the carafe, which Mr. An‐\nders explained is a feature in all French presses and has no\nbearing on the Chambord trade dress.\n On cross examination, A Top asked Mr. Anders many ad‐\nditional questions about patents and showed him approxi‐\nmately ten utility patents. A Top questioned Mr. Anders\nabout whether the patents disclosed the same elements\nBodum claims as part of the Chambord trade dress—a domed\nlid, a handle, and a circular knob atop the plunger. However,\ncounsel only provided Mr. Anders with the pictures from the\npatents, not the portion of the patents explaining the claims.\nMr. Anders testified that he believed utility patents describe\nthe claims in words, not in the illustrations, so he would not\nagree the patents disclosed any elements of the Chambord\ntrade dress based solely on a review of the pictures.\n Bodum’s counsel objected to the admission of the patents\nas evidence. The court provisionally admitted the patents for\nBodum’s redirect examination of Mr. Anders and then heard\narguments on the objection at the next break in the trial.\nBodum argued the patents A Top sought to have admitted\nwere irrelevant because they were not patents for any Bodum\nor A Top product and were not patents of identical designs.\nBodum also argued the proposed exhibits were incomplete as\nthey were only a portion of the patents. The district court re‐\nquested briefing on the issue of whether utility patents for\nsimilar but not identical products are relevant to the question\nof functionality and requested complete copies of each patent.\n After reviewing the parties’ arguments and the entire pa‐\ntents, the district court excluded them from evidence. The\ncourt explained it did not matter that the patents were for\n\fNo. 18‐3020 17\n\nother parties’ products but it did matter whether the features\nBodum claimed as part of its trade dress were disclosed in the\npatents. The court asked A Top to point to language in any of\nthe patents it sought to admit that claimed as part of the pa‐\ntent “any of the features that [Bodum] says are part of its trade\ndress.” A Top could not, however, find any such language.\nThough it continued to insist the patents described knobs and\ndomed lids, it could not point to any language in the patents\nto support this contention. The patent A Top claimed “most\nilluminating” described: “The system of Claim 1 or the cover\nmeans comprising removable cover for the drinking vessel\nadapted to fit over the top of the vessel, having an opening\nthrough which the push rod extends the sliding movement\nrelative to the cover.”6 But A Top was unable to point to a\nsingle patent that claimed a domed lid, a C‐shaped handle, feet\non the bottom of the carafe, or a metallic castle‐shaped cage—\nthe design elements Bodum claims as its trade dress.\n The district court reviewed the jury instruction on\nwhether a patent discloses the “practical advantages” of the\ndesign and explained that TrafFix Devices requires that the pa‐\ntent somewhere (not necessarily in the claims portion of the\npatent) claim the trade dress features in some “significant\nway.” Here, none of the patents did so. Though some of the\nFrench presses in the patent pictures had a handle, feet, or\nsomething on top of the plunger, the court did not think that\n“bears on the question of whether it’s functional as … trade\ndress law defines that term.” The court elaborated:\n\n\n\n 6 During argument on the objection, A Top described this as the Banks\n\npatent, 5,618,570, which does not appear to be in the record and is not\nmentioned in either party’s appellate briefs.\n\f18 No. 18‐3020\n\n [T]here is a massive potential for jury confusion\n here if these things are used in the way, frankly,\n that they were used during the cross‐examina‐\n tion of the [ ] expert. You put a picture up there,\n that’s got a handle, it’s got a knob, it’s got a\n plunger, it’s cylindrical like yours, that’s not\n what the inquiry is. The inquiry isn’t whether\n somebody has drawn this picture before. The\n inquiry is whether … the features are claimed in\n a patent in a way that shows that they have\n some sort of a function.\n The court then concluded: “I don’t think it’s relevant. If it’s\nrelevant, it has teeny teeny probative value, massive potential\nfor jury confusion. It’s excluded under Rule 403.” The court\ndid not permit A Top to use the patent evidence with its ex‐\npert and gave the jury a curative instruction: “During the\ncross‐examination of witness Robert Anders, he was shown\ncertain pages from certain patents. I have excluded those pa‐\ntents from the evidence in this case. You are not to consider\nthem for any purpose.”\n The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding\nthis evidence. The patents A Top sought to introduce do not\nclaim any of the features that comprise the claimed Cham‐\nbord trade dress. See TrafFix Devices, 532 U.S. at 29 (utility pa‐\ntents are evidence “that the features therein claimed are func‐\ntional” (emphasis added)). That the patents disclose a plunger\nand cylindrical carafe are irrelevant because Bodum does not\nclaim those elements as part of its trade dress. And the pic‐\ntures in the patents showing French presses with handles,\ndomed lids, or knobs are irrelevant to the legal question of\nfunctionality because the patents do not claim any of those\n\fNo. 18‐3020 19\n\nfeatures as part of the patented invention. Permitting the jury\nto view and consider the patents would cause confusion as to\nthe appropriate inquiry for functionality.\n A Top also claims that whether a patent discloses a fea‐\nture’s utility is a question of fact for the jury and, as such, the\ndistrict court erred in excluding the patents from the jury’s\nconsideration. In Thomas & Betts, we explained that a “utility\npatent must be examined in detail to determine whether or\nnot the disclosed configuration is really primarily functional\nor just incidentally appears in the disclosure of a patent.” 138\nF.3d at 300 (quoting J. Thomas McCarthy, 1 McCarthy on\nTrademarks and Unfair Competition § 6:10 (4th ed. 1996)).\nThere, the district court determined at summary judgment\nthat because the claimed feature was part of a patent and did\nnot appear incidentally, it was primarily a functional feature.\nId. On appeal, we determined that this conclusion “necessi‐\ntated a weighing of the evidence,” so a jury should have had\nthe opportunity to decide how much weight to give the patent\nconsidering all the other evidence presented on the function‐\nality issue. Id. The district court’s decision here is consistent\nwith Thomas & Betts. The court excluded the evidence under\nRule 403, an evidentiary rule that tasks the judge with balanc‐\ning the exclusion of relevant evidence with the risk of harm\nfrom admission. The district court did not decide the func‐\ntionality question; it determined that the patent evidence,\nwhile relevant to the question of functionality, posed too sig‐\nnificant a risk of jury confusion (an issue not raised by the pa‐\ntent evidence in Thomas & Betts).\n This is not one of those extreme cases in which we second‐\nguess the trial judge’s weighing of the probative value of the\nevidence with the potential for jury confusion on a Rule 403\n\f20 No. 18‐3020\n\nissue. We affirm the court’s denial of A Top’s motion for a\nnew trial.7\n III. Conclusion\n For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the\ndistrict court.\n\n\n\n\n 7In its opening brief, A Top cites to the standard of review for a mo‐\ntion for a new trial based on improper jury instructions. However, A Top\ndoes not develop an argument based on any problem with the court’s in‐\nstructions, and so we do not address this issue. See Ienco v. Angarone, 429\nF.3d 680, 685 (7th Cir. 2005).\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Bodum USA, Incorporated v. A Top New Casting Incorporated\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-06-12\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18‐3020\\nBODUM USA, INCORPORATED,\\n Plaintiff‐Appellee,\\n v.\\n\\nA TOP NEW CASTING INCORPORATED,\\n Defendant‐Appellant.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 16‐cv‐02916 — Matthew F. Kennelly, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED MAY 30, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 12, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before FLAUM, MANION, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.\\n FLAUM, Circuit Judge. Bodum USA, Inc. (“Bodum”) pro‐\\nduces and sells what design magazines and art museums\\nhave recognized as an iconically designed houseware prod‐\\nuct—the Chambord French press coffeemaker. Bodum sued\\nA Top New Casting, Inc. (“A Top”) for selling a French press\\nthat Bodum claimed infringes on its unregistered trade dress\\nin the Chambord. After a five‐day trial, a jury returned a ver‐\\n\\f2 No. 18‐3020\\n\\ndict in favor of Bodum, finding that A Top had willfully in‐\\nfringed on Bodum’s trade dress in the Chambord and award‐\\ning Bodum $2 million in damages. The district court denied\\nA Top’s post‐trial motion for judgment as a matter of law, in\\nwhich A Top argued that Bodum failed to prove the Cham‐\\nbord design was nonfunctional. A Top also moved for a new\\ntrial because the court excluded evidence of various utility pa‐\\ntents covering French press coffeemakers; the district court\\ndenied this motion as well. We affirm.\\n I. Background\\n Plaintiff‐appellee Bodum has been selling French press\\ncoffeemakers since the 1970s. A French press is a nonelectric\\ncoffeemaker consisting of a cylindrical carafe and a plunger\\nattached to a filter screen. The user adds boiling water to cof‐\\nfee grounds in the carafe and, after the grounds have steeped,\\npresses the filter down slowly through the carafe to separate\\nthe used grounds from the brewed coffee.\\n Bodum began distributing the Chambord, its flagship\\nFrench press, in 1983. The Chambord’s design originated in\\nFrance in the 1930s and is based on the towers of the Cham‐\\nbord Chateau, a castle in France’s Loire Valley. Its features in‐\\nclude a metal cage with a band around the top of the carafe,\\nmetal pillars ending in four curved feet, a C‐shaped handle,\\nand a domed lid topped with a spherical knob. Bodum’s\\nChambord French press is pictured below:\\n\\fNo. 18‐3020 3\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Bodum acquired exclusive rights to distribute the Cham‐\\nbord in 1991 and has spent millions of dollars promoting it in\\nprint and television advertisements and at trade shows\\nworldwide. Bodum sells the Chambord in department stores,\\nat Starbucks coffee shops, and online, including through Am‐\\nazon. The Chambord design has been recognized as classic by\\nsuch institutions as Phaidon Design Classics and the Museum\\nof Modern Art. Bodum actively polices whatever it believes\\nto be infringement of this design; it has sent dozens of cease‐\\nand‐desist letters over the past twenty‐five years and has filed\\nlawsuits against alleged infringers when they did not stop\\nselling their products in response to Bodum’s requests.\\n In 2014, defendant‐appellant A Top began selling a com‐\\npeting French press coffeemaker called the SterlingPro exclu‐\\nsively through Amazon. The SterlingPro is similar in appear‐\\nance to the Chambord, with the same metal cage, metal pillars\\nending in curved feet, C‐shaped handle, and domed lid\\n\\f4 No. 18‐3020\\n\\ntopped with a spherical knob. The two coffeemakers are pic‐\\ntured side‐by‐side below, with the Chambord on the left and\\nthe SterlingPro on the right:\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n Bodum filed a complaint against A Top in the Northern\\nDistrict of Illinois on March 7, 2016, bringing claims for trade\\ndress infringement under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.\\n§ 1125(a); common law unfair competition; and violation of\\nthe Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 815 Ill.\\nComp. Stat. § 510/1 et seq. According to Bodum’s complaint,\\nA Top intentionally adopted the overall appearance of the\\nChambord for its SterlingPro product, infringing on its unreg‐\\nistered trade dress in the design. A Top moved for summary\\njudgment on Bodum’s claims twice, but the district court de‐\\nnied these motions and the case proceeded to a jury trial on\\nMarch 28, 2018.\\n The jury returned a verdict in Bodum’s favor, finding that\\nA Top willfully infringed on Bodum’s Chambord trade dress\\nand awarding Bodum $2 million in damages. A Top timely\\nmoved for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of\\n\\fNo. 18‐3020 5\\n\\nCivil Procedure 50 and for a new trial under Rule 59. As rele‐\\nvant here, A Top claimed that it was entitled to judgment as a\\nmatter of law because Bodum had failed to prove its Cham‐\\nbord trade dress elements were nonfunctional. And A Top\\nsaid it was at least entitled to a new trial because the district\\ncourt erred in excluding evidence under Rule 403 of utility\\npatents that, it said, disclosed the Chambord’s trade dress fea‐\\ntures (demonstrating the functionality of those features). The\\ndistrict court denied both motions on June 6, 2018.\\n On August 21, 2018, the district court granted Bodum’s\\nmotion for enhanced damages, awarding prejudgment inter‐\\nest and doubling the damages award to $4 million, and it de‐\\nnied Bodum’s motion for attorney’s fees. Further, the court\\ngranted Bodum’s request for a permanent injunction to pre‐\\nvent A Top from continuing to sell its infringing SterlingPro\\nproducts. The district court entered final judgment on August\\n23, and A Top timely appealed.\\n II. Discussion\\n A Top pursues two arguments on appeal. First, A Top says\\nthat it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because\\nBodum did not meet its burden of demonstrating that the el‐\\nements of the claimed Chambord trade dress were nonfunc‐\\ntional (as required for it to be enforceable under the Lanham\\nAct). Second, A Top claims that it is entitled to a new trial be‐\\ncause the district court improperly excluded several utility\\npatents from evidence under Rule 403.\\n A. Functionality of the Chambord Trade Dress\\n We review de novo the denial of a Rule 50 motion for judg‐\\nment as a matter of law. Thorne v. Member Select Ins. Co., 882\\nF.3d 642, 644 (7th Cir. 2018). “Because a jury has rendered a\\n\\f6 No. 18‐3020\\n\\nverdict, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to\\nthat verdict.” Matthews v. Wis. Energy Corp., 642 F.3d 565, 567\\n(7th Cir. 2011). In our review, we do not make credibility de‐\\nterminations or reweigh the evidence; we need only deter‐\\nmine that there is more than “a mere scintilla of evidence” to\\nsupport the verdict. May v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 716 F.3d 963,\\n971 (7th Cir. 2013) (quoting Hossack v. Floor Covering Assoc. of\\nJoliet, Inc., 492 F.3d 853, 859 (7th Cir. 2007)). “In other words,\\nour job is to decide whether a highly charitable assessment of\\nthe evidence supports the jury’s verdict or if, instead, the jury\\nwas irrational to reach its conclusion.” Id.\\n The Lanham Act permits a civil action against any person\\nwho uses “any word, term, name, symbol, or device” “in con‐\\nnection with any goods or services” in a manner which “is\\nlikely to cause confusion” as to the source of those goods or\\nservices. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A). The Act’s protection ex‐\\ntends to a product’s trade dress, which includes a product de‐\\nsign that is so distinctive it identifies the product’s source. Ar‐\\nlington Specialties, Inc. v. Urban Aid, Inc., 847 F.3d 415, 418 (7th\\nCir. 2017); see also TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Mktg. Displays, Inc.,\\n532 U.S. 23, 28 (2001) (“The design or packaging of a product\\nmay acquire a distinctiveness which serves to identify the\\nproduct with its manufacturer or source; and a design or\\npackage which acquires this secondary meaning … is a trade\\ndress[.]”). As with any other trademark, infringement of a\\nproduct’s trade dress is actionable under the Act. Arlington\\nSpecialties, 847 F.3d at 418.\\n At trial, Bodum was required to prove a number of ele‐\\nments for the jury to find trade dress infringement—that it\\nowns a valid trade dress in the Chambord design, that the\\ntrade dress is not functional, and that A Top’s SterlingPro was\\n\\fNo. 18‐3020 7\\n\\nlikely to cause consumer confusion as to its source. See id. On\\nappeal, A Top does not dispute that the SterlingPro copies the\\nChambord. Instead, A Top only challenges Bodum’s proof on\\nthe functionality of its claimed trade dress.1\\n Trademark protection for trade dress, unlike patent and\\ncopyright protection, has no time limit; the Act therefore does\\nnot protect features that are necessary for the use of a product,\\nso as to prevent one competitor from maintaining a “perpet‐\\nual and exclusive right to a useful product feature.” Id. (citing\\nQualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co., 514 U.S. 159, 165 (1995)). The\\nSupreme Court has explained that “‘a product feature is func‐\\ntional,’ and cannot serve as a trademark, ‘if it is essential to\\nthe use or purpose of the article or if it affects the cost or qual‐\\nity of the article.’” Qualitex, 514 U.S. at 165 (quoting Inwood\\nLabs., Inc. v. Ives Labs., Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 850 n.10 (1982)). Even\\nif a claimed trade dress does not satisfy this first test, “it can\\nstill be functional if it is a ‘competitive necessity,’ that is, if its\\nexclusive use ‘would put competitors at a significant non‐rep‐\\nutation‐related disadvantage.’” Arlington Specialties, 847 F.3d\\nat 419 (quoting TrafFix Devices, 532 U.S. at 32–33)); see also Spe‐\\ncialized Seating, Inc. v. Greenwich Indus., LP, 616 F.3d 722, 727\\n(7th Cir. 2010) (a design is functional where a product “looks\\nthe way it does in order to be a better [product], not in order\\nto be a better way of identifying who made it”). Where, as\\nhere, the claimed trade dress is unregistered, it is the burden\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 1 In fact, at oral argument, A Top confirmed that it was not arguing\\nthat the SterlingPro did not copy the Chambord, but it instead argued that\\nit “had a right to copy, right down to the last bolt,” because Bodum did\\nnot have a valid trade dress in the Chambord.\\n\\f8 No. 18‐3020\\n\\nof the party asserting protection to prove that the trade dress\\nis not functional. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(3).\\n In deciding whether a trade dress element is functional,\\nwe consider several factors:\\n (1) the existence of a utility patent, expired or\\n unexpired, that involves or describes the func‐\\n tionality of an item’s design element; (2) the util‐\\n itarian properties of the item’s unpatented de‐\\n sign elements; (3) advertising of the item that\\n touts the utilitarian advantages of the item’s de‐\\n sign elements; (4) the dearth of, or difficulty in\\n creating, alternative designs for the item’s pur‐\\n pose; (5) the effect of the design feature on an\\n item’s quality or cost.\\nGa.–Pac. Consumer Prods. LP v. Kimberly–Clark Corp., 647 F.3d\\n723, 727–28 (7th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). No one factor is\\ndispositive. See id. at 728–31 (considering each factor sepa‐\\nrately to determine whether it weighs in favor of or against\\nfunctionality); Valu Eng’g, Inc. v. Rexnord Corp., 278 F.3d 1268,\\n1274–75 (Fed. Cir. 2002).\\n Bodum claims trade dress protection in the overall ap‐\\npearance of the Chambord and identifies the following spe‐\\ncific elements as contributing to that distinctive look: the\\nmetal band surrounding the carafe that forms support feet\\nand the handle attachment, the domed lid, the rounded knob\\natop the plunger, and the C‐shaped handle. See Comput. Care\\nv. Serv. Sys. Enters., Inc., 982 F.2d 1063, 1071 (7th Cir. 1992)\\n(where plaintiff seeks to protect overall appearance of its\\ntrade dress, focus of analysis is on that total appearance rather\\nthan individual design elements in isolation). Bodum does\\n\\fNo. 18‐3020 9\\n\\nnot claim a trade dress in the cylindrical carafe or the plunger,\\nas it acknowledges those elements are functional for a French\\npress coffeemaker.\\n A Top argues Bodum failed to establish that the claimed\\nChambord features are not essential to its use and that these\\nfeatures do not affect the coffeemaker’s cost or quality. How‐\\never, in its argument, A Top consistently elides the distinction\\nbetween a product’s “function” in the everyday meaning of\\nthe term and “functional” as a term of art used in trade dress\\nlaw. Bodum does not claim that any French press coffeemaker\\nwith a handle, a domed top, or metal around the carafe in‐\\nfringes on its trade dress. Rather, it is the overall appearance\\nof A Top’s SterlingPro, which has the same shaped handle, the\\nsame domed lid, the same shaped feet, the same rounded knob,\\nand the same shaped metal frame as the Chambord, that\\nBodum objects to. Thus, to establish it has a valid trade dress,\\nBodum did not have to prove that something like a handle\\ndoes not serve any function. It merely needed to prove that\\npreventing competitors from copying the Chambord’s partic‐\\nular design would not significantly disadvantage them from\\nproducing a competitive and cost‐efficient French press cof‐\\nfeemaker. See Arlington Specialties, 847 F.3d at 419.\\n When properly framed in this manner, Bodum presented\\nsufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that the\\nChambord’s overall look was nonfunctional. First, regarding\\nthe utilitarian properties of the Chambord’s design elements,\\nsee Ga.–Pac. Consumer Prods., 647 F.3d at 728, Bodum’s func‐\\ntionality expert Robert Anders testified about their nonutili‐\\ntarian nature. He testified that the only functional parts of the\\nChambord—the parts that are necessary to make French press\\ncoffee—are the plunger and cylindrical shape of the carafe. In\\n\\f10 No. 18‐3020\\n\\ncontrast, Mr. Anders did not believe the particular C‐shape of\\nthe Chambord’s handle worked better than an alternatively\\nshaped handle and, in fact, testified that he thought the C‐\\nshape was “not as ergonomically designed as it could be.” Mr.\\nAnders further testified that the dome‐shaped lid was an “ar‐\\nbitrary design” because the lid “could be of any shape” in or‐\\nder to work, and the metal frame is “absolutely not” necessary\\nfor the Chambord to make French press coffee.\\n A Top’s expert, Peter Bressler, agreed. He “didn’t see par‐\\nticularly great advantage in the design of the handle, but [he]\\nsaw an advantage in having a handle.” Whether it is more ad‐\\nvantageous for a French press to have a handle, however, is\\nnot the pertinent inquiry; the question is whether there is an\\nadvantage to having this designed handle, to which Mr. Bressler\\nagreed there is not. The same is true of the feet: Mr. Bressler\\ntestified he “didn’t see a particular advantage in the design of\\nthe feet, but [ ] saw the fact that it had feet, which, to [him],\\nwas a utilitarian advantage.” Again, this does not speak to\\nany advantages of the design of the feet. Overall, Mr. Bressler\\ntestified that “[t]he utilitarian advantages … are not that\\nclear.” This evidence weighs in favor of nonfunctionality be‐\\ncause it supports that the claimed Chambord features are\\n“merely ornamental” and are not necessary to make the\\nChambord work better as a French press coffeemaker. Arling‐\\nton Specialties, 847 F.3d at 420 (citation omitted).2\\n\\n\\n 2A Top points to two changes Bodum made to the Chambord in re‐\\nsponse to safety issues the United States Consumer Product Safety Com‐\\nmission raised—reducing the size of the knob and redesigning the lid to\\nfit deeper into the carafe—as evidence the knob and lid are functional.\\nHowever, Bodum could have reduced the size of the knob and made it a\\nflat disk or redesigned the deep‐fitting lid to be flat instead of domed\\n\\fNo. 18‐3020 11\\n\\n Next, A Top argues that Bodum admitted the Chambord\\ndesign was functional in its advertising and thus failed to\\nmeet its burden of proving nonfunctionality. See Ga.–Pac. Con‐\\nsumer Prods., 647 F.3d at 730 (advertising that touts the de‐\\nsign’s “utilitarian advantages” can weigh in favor of function‐\\nality). Indeed, Joergen Bodum, CEO of Bodum’s parent com‐\\npany, testified regarding Chambord advertisements describ‐\\ning the product as “functional” and about an interview he\\ngave in which he described Bodum’s products as “function‐\\ndriven.” However, he also explained that these references to\\nfunctionality were not invoking the term’s legal definition but\\nwere merely intended to convey that Bodum’s products work.\\nIn fact, Bodum’s advertising for the Chambord never claimed\\nany of its design features worked better than other options—\\nfor example, it never claimed the handle is an ergonomic\\nshape nor that its four curved feet provide stability. Rather,\\nthe advertising focused on the classic look of the Chambord\\ndesign. Thus, a reasonable jury could weigh this evidence\\nagainst a finding of functionality in the legal trade dress\\nsense.\\n Additionally, Bodum introduced a plethora of evidence\\nregarding the availability of alternative designs, which sup‐\\nported the Chambord’s lack of functionality. Id. It introduced\\nas trial exhibits competing manufacturers’ French presses fea‐\\nturing different design elements, including those made of dif‐\\nferent materials, with differently shaped handles, lids,\\nplunger knobs, and frames, those that do not have transpar‐\\nent carafes or do not have feet, and those with differently\\n\\nwhile still remedying these safety concerns. There is no evidence that the\\nappearance of the features as redesigned are necessary for a competitive\\nproduct, from a use (or cost) perspective.\\n\\f12 No. 18‐3020\\n\\nshaped external structures surrounding the cylindrical carafe.\\nSee Appellee Br. at 4 (pictures of alternatively designed\\nFrench presses introduced as trial exhibits). More im‐\\nportantly, Bodum introduced evidence that both it and A Top\\nsell French presses with alternative designs and made of dif‐\\nferent materials. Thus, there was ample evidence before the\\njury in Bodum’s favor on this factor.\\n Finally, we must consider the cost or quality advantage\\ntest of functionality. See TrafFix Devices, 532 U.S. at 32; see also\\nGa.–Pac. Consumer Prods., 647 F.3d at 731. Again, Bodum pre‐\\nsented sufficient evidence from which a jury could conclude\\nthat the Chambord’s design conferred no cost or quality ad‐\\nvantage that made it functional. Bodum’s expert, Mr. Anders,\\ntestified the Chambord design was “complex” and that there\\nare “simpler ways of doing this.” He explained the more com‐\\nplex the structure, the more expensive the product is to man‐\\nufacture, so he disagreed with A Top’s expert that the Cham‐\\nbord was the least expensive method to manufacture a French\\npress. Mr. Anders also explained that plastic is generally\\ncheaper to use than metal in manufacturing, so plastic‐framed\\nFrench presses would be cheaper to manufacture than the\\nmetal‐framed Chambord.\\n Joergen Bodum further supported Mr. Anders’s opinion\\nin his testimony regarding the many different French presses\\nBodum produces. For example, Bodum’s “Bistro” French\\npress does not have a metal frame, a domed lid, or a C‐shaped\\nhandle. Mr. Bodum testified that the Bistro is less expensive\\nto produce (“maybe less than half of what it costs to make a\\nChambord”) and less time‐consuming to produce because it\\nrequires less material than the Chambord. Although the Bis‐\\ntro was a successful first product for the company, Mr.\\n\\fNo. 18‐3020 13\\n\\nBodum testified he decided to produce the Chambord, a more\\ncomplex and expensive product, in addition to the Bistro be‐\\ncause he was interested in its iconic French design. Mr.\\nBodum also discussed the manufacturing costs to produce\\nBodum’s various French press coffeemakers. He explained\\nthat the Chambord is neither the cheapest nor the most expen‐\\nsive French press Bodum sells.3 Thus, Mr. Bodum’s testimony\\nsupported that the Chambord’s overall design conferred no\\nparticular cost advantage that made it functional.4\\n\\n 3 A Top repeatedly states in its brief that Mr. Bodum testified the\\nChambord provides a cost advantage. The trial testimony A Top cites for\\nthe proposition, however, does not support this assertion. Though Mr.\\nBodum did answer affirmatively that the Chambord design “gives a cost\\nadvantage in manufacturing over other types of French presses,” it is\\nabundantly clear from the surrounding answers that Mr. Bodum\\nmisspoke in answering this question. Immediately before this answer, Mr.\\nBodum explained that the Chambord is “one of the most expensive” cof‐\\nfeemakers to manufacture, and immediately after, Mr. Bodum confirmed\\nthat the Chambord’s design does not “result from the fact that it was so\\ninexpensive to manufacture.” A Top’s efforts to take Mr. Bodum’s mis‐\\nstatement as an admission are therefore unavailing.\\n 4 A Top relies on Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 786 F.3d 983\\n(Fed. Cir. 2015), rev’d and remanded on other grounds, 137 S. Ct. 429 (2016),\\nto argue that Bodum’s evidence regarding the relative costs of the materials\\nused to make the Chambord is irrelevant and, therefore, that Bodum in‐\\ntroduced nothing to show the Chambord is nonfunctional under the cost\\nadvantage test. Apple, a Federal Circuit case applying Ninth Circuit law,\\nis not controlling here, but in any event, it is distinguishable. In Apple, the\\nplaintiff argued that its unregistered trade dress in its product did not re‐\\nsult from a comparatively simple manufacturing process. Id. at 994. The\\nFederal Circuit, however, noted that the difficulties plaintiff encountered\\nin its manufacturing process resulted from its choice to use certain mate‐\\nrials to improve the durability (i.e., the function) of its product. Id. Thus,\\nthis evidence did not address any cost advantages or disadvantages of\\nplaintiff’s design. Id. Here, however, Bodum introduced evidence that\\n\\f14 No. 18‐3020\\n\\n Indeed, Jian Liang, A Top’s CEO, testified that A Top pro‐\\nduces another French press with a plastic frame that is less\\nexpensive than the metal SterlingPro. This testimony further\\ndemonstrates that the Chambord’s design does not provide a\\ncost advantage. Contrary to A Top’s argument, Bodum pro‐\\nvided evidence sufficient for the jury to conclude that the\\nChambord’s appearance is costlier to manufacture than to de‐\\nsign around, which supports that the Chambord trade dress\\nis not functional. See Thomas & Betts Corp. v. Panduit Corp., 138\\nF.3d 277, 297–98 (7th Cir. 1998).\\n Overall, looking at the evidence in the light most favorable\\nto the verdict, Bodum presented sufficient evidence for the\\njury to have found Bodum’s claimed trade dress was non‐\\nfunctional. We cannot say the jury was irrational to reach this\\nconclusion, so we affirm the denial of A Top’s motion for\\njudgment as a matter of law.\\n B. Exclusion of Utility Patents Evidence\\n A Top also appeals a related issue—the district court’s de‐\\ncision to exclude evidence of various utility patents, which\\nA Top contends demonstrate the functionality of the claimed\\nChambord trade dress features. A district court may exclude\\nrelevant evidence where its probative value is substantially\\noutweighed by, for example, a risk of unfair prejudice or con‐\\nfusing the issues. Fed. R. Evid. 403. We review evidentiary\\nrulings for abuse of discretion and will reverse “only if no rea‐\\nsonable person would agree with the district court’s view.”\\n\\n\\n\\nFrench presses can still function when made out of other materials, like\\nplastic, and that the metal and glass used for the Chambord design do not\\nconfer any particular cost or quality advantage for the product.\\n\\fNo. 18‐3020 15\\n\\nUnited States v. Proano, 912 F.3d 431, 438 (7th Cir. 2019). Fur‐\\nthermore, we accord Rule 403 determinations “‘special defer‐\\nence,’ because only ‘in an extreme case are appellate judges\\ncompetent to second‐guess the judgment of the person on the\\nspot, the trial judge.’” Id. at 440 (quoting United States v. Jack‐\\nson, 898 F.3d 760, 764 (7th Cir. 2018)).\\n As noted above, courts consider “the existence of a utility\\npatent, expired or unexpired, that involves or describes the\\nfunctionality of an item’s design element” in considering\\nwhether a claimed trade dress is functional. Ga.–Pac. Con‐\\nsumer Prods., 647 F.3d at 727–28.5 As the Supreme Court has\\nexplained, a utility patent is “strong evidence that the features\\ntherein claimed are functional.” TrafFix Devices, 532 U.S. at 29.\\nIn other words, “if the ‘central advance’ claimed in the utility\\npatent matches the ‘essential feature’ of the trademark, there\\nis strong evidence that the design is functional.” Ga.–Pac. Con‐\\nsumer Prods., 647 F.3d at 728 (quoting TrafFix Devices, 532 U.S.\\nat 30).\\n Evidence of utility patents came up during Mr. Anders’s\\nexamination. On direct examination, Bodum asked Mr. An‐\\nders a total of seven questions about utility patents and\\nshowed him one patent that A Top’s expert had cited in his\\nreport. Mr. Anders testified that, though a utility patent\\nclaiming a feature is evidence that this feature is functional in\\nthe trade dress sense, he did not find any utility patents cov‐\\nering the Chambord trade dress features. He believed the pa‐\\n\\n\\n\\n 5 A utility patent covers “any new and useful process, machine, man‐\\nufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement\\nthereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.\\n\\f16 No. 18‐3020\\n\\ntent A Top’s expert cited only disclosed the plunger rod en‐\\ngaging with the cylindrical walls of the carafe, which Mr. An‐\\nders explained is a feature in all French presses and has no\\nbearing on the Chambord trade dress.\\n On cross examination, A Top asked Mr. Anders many ad‐\\nditional questions about patents and showed him approxi‐\\nmately ten utility patents. A Top questioned Mr. Anders\\nabout whether the patents disclosed the same elements\\nBodum claims as part of the Chambord trade dress—a domed\\nlid, a handle, and a circular knob atop the plunger. However,\\ncounsel only provided Mr. Anders with the pictures from the\\npatents, not the portion of the patents explaining the claims.\\nMr. Anders testified that he believed utility patents describe\\nthe claims in words, not in the illustrations, so he would not\\nagree the patents disclosed any elements of the Chambord\\ntrade dress based solely on a review of the pictures.\\n Bodum’s counsel objected to the admission of the patents\\nas evidence. The court provisionally admitted the patents for\\nBodum’s redirect examination of Mr. Anders and then heard\\narguments on the objection at the next break in the trial.\\nBodum argued the patents A Top sought to have admitted\\nwere irrelevant because they were not patents for any Bodum\\nor A Top product and were not patents of identical designs.\\nBodum also argued the proposed exhibits were incomplete as\\nthey were only a portion of the patents. The district court re‐\\nquested briefing on the issue of whether utility patents for\\nsimilar but not identical products are relevant to the question\\nof functionality and requested complete copies of each patent.\\n After reviewing the parties’ arguments and the entire pa‐\\ntents, the district court excluded them from evidence. The\\ncourt explained it did not matter that the patents were for\\n\\fNo. 18‐3020 17\\n\\nother parties’ products but it did matter whether the features\\nBodum claimed as part of its trade dress were disclosed in the\\npatents. The court asked A Top to point to language in any of\\nthe patents it sought to admit that claimed as part of the pa‐\\ntent “any of the features that [Bodum] says are part of its trade\\ndress.” A Top could not, however, find any such language.\\nThough it continued to insist the patents described knobs and\\ndomed lids, it could not point to any language in the patents\\nto support this contention. The patent A Top claimed “most\\nilluminating” described: “The system of Claim 1 or the cover\\nmeans comprising removable cover for the drinking vessel\\nadapted to fit over the top of the vessel, having an opening\\nthrough which the push rod extends the sliding movement\\nrelative to the cover.”6 But A Top was unable to point to a\\nsingle patent that claimed a domed lid, a C‐shaped handle, feet\\non the bottom of the carafe, or a metallic castle‐shaped cage—\\nthe design elements Bodum claims as its trade dress.\\n The district court reviewed the jury instruction on\\nwhether a patent discloses the “practical advantages” of the\\ndesign and explained that TrafFix Devices requires that the pa‐\\ntent somewhere (not necessarily in the claims portion of the\\npatent) claim the trade dress features in some “significant\\nway.” Here, none of the patents did so. Though some of the\\nFrench presses in the patent pictures had a handle, feet, or\\nsomething on top of the plunger, the court did not think that\\n“bears on the question of whether it’s functional as … trade\\ndress law defines that term.” The court elaborated:\\n\\n\\n\\n 6 During argument on the objection, A Top described this as the Banks\\n\\npatent, 5,618,570, which does not appear to be in the record and is not\\nmentioned in either party’s appellate briefs.\\n\\f18 No. 18‐3020\\n\\n [T]here is a massive potential for jury confusion\\n here if these things are used in the way, frankly,\\n that they were used during the cross‐examina‐\\n tion of the [ ] expert. You put a picture up there,\\n that’s got a handle, it’s got a knob, it’s got a\\n plunger, it’s cylindrical like yours, that’s not\\n what the inquiry is. The inquiry isn’t whether\\n somebody has drawn this picture before. The\\n inquiry is whether … the features are claimed in\\n a patent in a way that shows that they have\\n some sort of a function.\\n The court then concluded: “I don’t think it’s relevant. If it’s\\nrelevant, it has teeny teeny probative value, massive potential\\nfor jury confusion. It’s excluded under Rule 403.” The court\\ndid not permit A Top to use the patent evidence with its ex‐\\npert and gave the jury a curative instruction: “During the\\ncross‐examination of witness Robert Anders, he was shown\\ncertain pages from certain patents. I have excluded those pa‐\\ntents from the evidence in this case. You are not to consider\\nthem for any purpose.”\\n The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding\\nthis evidence. The patents A Top sought to introduce do not\\nclaim any of the features that comprise the claimed Cham‐\\nbord trade dress. See TrafFix Devices, 532 U.S. at 29 (utility pa‐\\ntents are evidence “that the features therein claimed are func‐\\ntional” (emphasis added)). That the patents disclose a plunger\\nand cylindrical carafe are irrelevant because Bodum does not\\nclaim those elements as part of its trade dress. And the pic‐\\ntures in the patents showing French presses with handles,\\ndomed lids, or knobs are irrelevant to the legal question of\\nfunctionality because the patents do not claim any of those\\n\\fNo. 18‐3020 19\\n\\nfeatures as part of the patented invention. Permitting the jury\\nto view and consider the patents would cause confusion as to\\nthe appropriate inquiry for functionality.\\n A Top also claims that whether a patent discloses a fea‐\\nture’s utility is a question of fact for the jury and, as such, the\\ndistrict court erred in excluding the patents from the jury’s\\nconsideration. In Thomas & Betts, we explained that a “utility\\npatent must be examined in detail to determine whether or\\nnot the disclosed configuration is really primarily functional\\nor just incidentally appears in the disclosure of a patent.” 138\\nF.3d at 300 (quoting J. Thomas McCarthy, 1 McCarthy on\\nTrademarks and Unfair Competition § 6:10 (4th ed. 1996)).\\nThere, the district court determined at summary judgment\\nthat because the claimed feature was part of a patent and did\\nnot appear incidentally, it was primarily a functional feature.\\nId. On appeal, we determined that this conclusion “necessi‐\\ntated a weighing of the evidence,” so a jury should have had\\nthe opportunity to decide how much weight to give the patent\\nconsidering all the other evidence presented on the function‐\\nality issue. Id. The district court’s decision here is consistent\\nwith Thomas & Betts. The court excluded the evidence under\\nRule 403, an evidentiary rule that tasks the judge with balanc‐\\ning the exclusion of relevant evidence with the risk of harm\\nfrom admission. The district court did not decide the func‐\\ntionality question; it determined that the patent evidence,\\nwhile relevant to the question of functionality, posed too sig‐\\nnificant a risk of jury confusion (an issue not raised by the pa‐\\ntent evidence in Thomas & Betts).\\n This is not one of those extreme cases in which we second‐\\nguess the trial judge’s weighing of the probative value of the\\nevidence with the potential for jury confusion on a Rule 403\\n\\f20 No. 18‐3020\\n\\nissue. We affirm the court’s denial of A Top’s motion for a\\nnew trial.7\\n III. Conclusion\\n For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the\\ndistrict court.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 7In its opening brief, A Top cites to the standard of review for a mo‐\\ntion for a new trial based on improper jury instructions. However, A Top\\ndoes not develop an argument based on any problem with the court’s in‐\\nstructions, and so we do not address this issue. See Ienco v. Angarone, 429\\nF.3d 680, 685 (7th Cir. 2005).\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2575,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4628978,"string":"4,628,978"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. David Tjader"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-06-12"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-2447"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before KANNE, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"ST. EVE, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18‐2447\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff‐Appellee,\\n v.\\n\\nDAVID TJADER,\\n Defendant‐Appellant.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Western District of Wisconsin.\\n No. 3:17CR00100‐001 — William M. Conley, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED APRIL 24, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 12, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before KANNE, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.\\n ST. EVE, Circuit Judge. In this appeal, David Tjader chal‐\\nlenges several conditions of his supervised release on\\ngrounds he did not raise in the district court. Because he\\nwaived these challenges, we affirm.\\n Tjader purchased child pornography online from sellers in\\nthe Philippines. He asked one seller about recordings of girls\\n\\f2 No. 18‐2447\\n\\nunder 14 years old being tortured, raped, or killed. His con‐\\nduct involved over 250 different pornographic images and\\nvideos of prepubescent girls. Tjader pleaded guilty to one\\ncount of receiving child pornography. See 18 U.S.C.\\n§ 2252(a)(2),(b)(1).\\n A United States probation officer prepared a presentence\\ninvestigation report and a supervision plan. Tjader received a\\ncopy of this plan and confirmed with the district court that,\\nbefore sentencing, he reviewed and understood it. As part of\\nthe plan, the probation officer proposed the following\\nsupervised‐release terms—terms that Tjader now challenges\\non appeal:\\n Condition 1: Defendant shall not leave the judicial\\n district in which defendant is being supervised without the\\n permission of the Court or probation officer.\\n Condition 2: Defendant … shall … follow the [pro‐\\n bation] officer’s instructions … .\\n Condition 11: As directed by the probation officer,\\n defendant shall notify third parties of risks that may be oc‐\\n casioned by defendant’s criminal record or personal history\\n or characteristics … .\\n Condition 12: Provide the supervising U.S. proba‐\\n tion officer any and all requested financial information, in‐\\n cluding copies of state and federal tax returns.\\n Condition 16: As approved by the supervising U.S.\\n Probation Officer, undergo psychosexual evaluations,\\n which may involve use of polygraph examinations. Defend‐\\n ant shall participate in an outpatient sex offender counsel‐\\n ing program if recommended by the evaluator, … .\\n Condition 17: Not meet or spend time with any per‐\\n son under the age of 18 or have verbal, written, telephonic\\n\\fNo. 18‐2447 3\\n\\n or electronic communication with any such person … . This\\n provision does not include persons under the age of 18, such\\n as waiters, cashiers, ticket vendors, etc., with whom defend‐\\n ant must deal in order to obtain ordinary and usual com‐\\n mercial services.\\n Condition 18: Not work in any occupation, business\\n or profession, or participate in any volunteer activity where\\n he has access to children under the age of 18 without the\\n prior approval of the supervising U.S. probation officer.\\n Tjader initially objected to only two of these conditions rel‐\\nevant to this appeal. First, he argued that Condition 12 (re‐\\nquiring that he provide financial information upon request)\\nwas an “excessive intrusion” and “not rationally designed to\\nsupervise him” because his crime was not financial in nature.\\nSecond, he argued that Condition 16 (requiring psychosexual\\nevaluation and potentially counseling) was impermissible to\\nthe extent that it authorized Abel Screening and plethysmo‐\\ngraph examinations (tests that measure sexual interest) and\\npolygraph tests because those tests, he said, must be shown\\nto be reliable under Daubert before they could be used. (Tjader\\nobjected to other conditions as well, but he does not challenge\\nthem on appeal.)\\n The court addressed Tjader’s objections in detail, over‐\\nruled them, and adopted the proposed conditions. The court\\nthen asked Tjader whether it should read and justify the re‐\\nmaining conditions or adopt the supervision plan’s recitation\\nof them and their explanations. Tjader responded that he\\n“waive[d] the reading of any justification of the additional\\nconditions that [he] did not object to.” He also acknowledged\\nthat he reviewed the conditions with counsel and that he un‐\\nderstood them and their justifications. The court sentenced\\n\\f4 No. 18‐2447\\n\\nTjader to seven years in prison and ten years of supervised\\nrelease, and it ordered him to pay restitution.\\n On appeal, Tjader again challenges Condition 12 (the\\nfinancial‐monitoring condition) and Condition 16 (the\\nevaluation and treatment condition), but he does so on new\\ngrounds. For Condition 12, rather than argue as he did in the\\ndistrict court that it is unduly burdensome, he now asserts\\nthat the district court gave inadequate reasons for imposing\\nit. For Condition 16, he now primarily argues that the court\\nimpermissibly delegated its authority to non‐judicial actors.\\nHe also contests other conditions for the first time.\\n We review preserved arguments for abuse of discretion\\nand forfeited ones for plain error. See United States v. Bickart,\\n825 F.3d 832, 839 (7th Cir. 2016). Waived arguments—those\\nthat are intentionally relinquished—we cannot review at all.\\nSee United States v. Bloch, 825 F.3d 862, 873 (7th Cir. 2016).\\n Tjader waived all of his appellate arguments against the\\nsupervisory conditions. When a defendant has received ad‐\\nvanced notice of conditions of supervised release and is in‐\\nvited to object to them in the district court, a “failure to object\\n… can amount to waiver.” United States v. Gabriel, 831 F.3d\\n811, 814 (7th Cir. 2016); see also United States v. Raney, 842 F.3d\\n1041, 1044 (7th Cir. 2016). Tjader had advanced notice of the\\nconditions because they were in the supervision plan, which\\nhe received before sentencing. See United States v. Gumila, 879\\nF.3d 831, 838 (7th Cir. 2018); United States v. Lewis, 823 F.3d\\n1075, 1082 (7th Cir. 2016). The district court also confirmed\\nthat Tjader had time to review them and that he understood\\nthem. See Gumila, 879 F.3d at 838; Bloch, 825 F.3d at 873. And\\nbefore sentencing, when the district court invited Tjader to\\npresent his objections to the conditions, Tjader raised some\\n\\fNo. 18‐2447 5\\n\\nobjections (not raised on appeal), but not others. We may infer\\nfrom his choice to raise these other objections that his decision\\nnot to raise the ones he now advances on appeal was strategic\\nand intentional. See Gumila, 879 F.3d at 838; United States v.\\nRanjel, 872 F.3d 815, 821–22 (7th Cir. 2017). Tjader’s decision\\nto waive an explanation of the remaining conditions—noting\\nthat he understood those conditions and their justifications—\\nconfirmed his intent. See Lewis, 823 F.3d at 1083. This conduct\\nresulted in a waiver of Tjader’s appellate challenges.1\\n Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 1 Tjader argues, and the government agrees, that the mandate to no‐\\ntify “third parties” of “the risks” that his “history” and “characteristics”\\npose is vague. Tjader’s waiver of this point is dispositive. See Raney, 842\\nF.3d at 1044. We do, however, note that Tjader may later seek modification\\nof this condition. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); United States v. Williams, 840 F.3d\\n865 (7th Cir. 2016) (per curiam). As the district court informed Tjader at\\nsentencing, he can ask the court to modify his conditions after he is re‐\\nleased to the extent such modifications are appropriate.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4406231/\", \"author_raw\": \"ST. EVE, Circuit Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"KANNE"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"HAMILTON"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"ST EVE"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"KANNE\": \", Circuit\", \"HAMILTON\": \", Circuit\", \"ST EVE\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4628978/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":6,"string":"6"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: United States v. David Tjader\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-06-12\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18‐2447\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n Plaintiff‐Appellee,\n v.\n\nDAVID TJADER,\n Defendant‐Appellant.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Western District of Wisconsin.\n No. 3:17CR00100‐001 — William M. Conley, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED APRIL 24, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 12, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before KANNE, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.\n ST. EVE, Circuit Judge. In this appeal, David Tjader chal‐\nlenges several conditions of his supervised release on\ngrounds he did not raise in the district court. Because he\nwaived these challenges, we affirm.\n Tjader purchased child pornography online from sellers in\nthe Philippines. He asked one seller about recordings of girls\n\f2 No. 18‐2447\n\nunder 14 years old being tortured, raped, or killed. His con‐\nduct involved over 250 different pornographic images and\nvideos of prepubescent girls. Tjader pleaded guilty to one\ncount of receiving child pornography. See 18 U.S.C.\n§ 2252(a)(2),(b)(1).\n A United States probation officer prepared a presentence\ninvestigation report and a supervision plan. Tjader received a\ncopy of this plan and confirmed with the district court that,\nbefore sentencing, he reviewed and understood it. As part of\nthe plan, the probation officer proposed the following\nsupervised‐release terms—terms that Tjader now challenges\non appeal:\n Condition 1: Defendant shall not leave the judicial\n district in which defendant is being supervised without the\n permission of the Court or probation officer.\n Condition 2: Defendant … shall … follow the [pro‐\n bation] officer’s instructions … .\n Condition 11: As directed by the probation officer,\n defendant shall notify third parties of risks that may be oc‐\n casioned by defendant’s criminal record or personal history\n or characteristics … .\n Condition 12: Provide the supervising U.S. proba‐\n tion officer any and all requested financial information, in‐\n cluding copies of state and federal tax returns.\n Condition 16: As approved by the supervising U.S.\n Probation Officer, undergo psychosexual evaluations,\n which may involve use of polygraph examinations. Defend‐\n ant shall participate in an outpatient sex offender counsel‐\n ing program if recommended by the evaluator, … .\n Condition 17: Not meet or spend time with any per‐\n son under the age of 18 or have verbal, written, telephonic\n\fNo. 18‐2447 3\n\n or electronic communication with any such person … . This\n provision does not include persons under the age of 18, such\n as waiters, cashiers, ticket vendors, etc., with whom defend‐\n ant must deal in order to obtain ordinary and usual com‐\n mercial services.\n Condition 18: Not work in any occupation, business\n or profession, or participate in any volunteer activity where\n he has access to children under the age of 18 without the\n prior approval of the supervising U.S. probation officer.\n Tjader initially objected to only two of these conditions rel‐\nevant to this appeal. First, he argued that Condition 12 (re‐\nquiring that he provide financial information upon request)\nwas an “excessive intrusion” and “not rationally designed to\nsupervise him” because his crime was not financial in nature.\nSecond, he argued that Condition 16 (requiring psychosexual\nevaluation and potentially counseling) was impermissible to\nthe extent that it authorized Abel Screening and plethysmo‐\ngraph examinations (tests that measure sexual interest) and\npolygraph tests because those tests, he said, must be shown\nto be reliable under Daubert before they could be used. (Tjader\nobjected to other conditions as well, but he does not challenge\nthem on appeal.)\n The court addressed Tjader’s objections in detail, over‐\nruled them, and adopted the proposed conditions. The court\nthen asked Tjader whether it should read and justify the re‐\nmaining conditions or adopt the supervision plan’s recitation\nof them and their explanations. Tjader responded that he\n“waive[d] the reading of any justification of the additional\nconditions that [he] did not object to.” He also acknowledged\nthat he reviewed the conditions with counsel and that he un‐\nderstood them and their justifications. The court sentenced\n\f4 No. 18‐2447\n\nTjader to seven years in prison and ten years of supervised\nrelease, and it ordered him to pay restitution.\n On appeal, Tjader again challenges Condition 12 (the\nfinancial‐monitoring condition) and Condition 16 (the\nevaluation and treatment condition), but he does so on new\ngrounds. For Condition 12, rather than argue as he did in the\ndistrict court that it is unduly burdensome, he now asserts\nthat the district court gave inadequate reasons for imposing\nit. For Condition 16, he now primarily argues that the court\nimpermissibly delegated its authority to non‐judicial actors.\nHe also contests other conditions for the first time.\n We review preserved arguments for abuse of discretion\nand forfeited ones for plain error. See United States v. Bickart,\n825 F.3d 832, 839 (7th Cir. 2016). Waived arguments—those\nthat are intentionally relinquished—we cannot review at all.\nSee United States v. Bloch, 825 F.3d 862, 873 (7th Cir. 2016).\n Tjader waived all of his appellate arguments against the\nsupervisory conditions. When a defendant has received ad‐\nvanced notice of conditions of supervised release and is in‐\nvited to object to them in the district court, a “failure to object\n… can amount to waiver.” United States v. Gabriel, 831 F.3d\n811, 814 (7th Cir. 2016); see also United States v. Raney, 842 F.3d\n1041, 1044 (7th Cir. 2016). Tjader had advanced notice of the\nconditions because they were in the supervision plan, which\nhe received before sentencing. See United States v. Gumila, 879\nF.3d 831, 838 (7th Cir. 2018); United States v. Lewis, 823 F.3d\n1075, 1082 (7th Cir. 2016). The district court also confirmed\nthat Tjader had time to review them and that he understood\nthem. See Gumila, 879 F.3d at 838; Bloch, 825 F.3d at 873. And\nbefore sentencing, when the district court invited Tjader to\npresent his objections to the conditions, Tjader raised some\n\fNo. 18‐2447 5\n\nobjections (not raised on appeal), but not others. We may infer\nfrom his choice to raise these other objections that his decision\nnot to raise the ones he now advances on appeal was strategic\nand intentional. See Gumila, 879 F.3d at 838; United States v.\nRanjel, 872 F.3d 815, 821–22 (7th Cir. 2017). Tjader’s decision\nto waive an explanation of the remaining conditions—noting\nthat he understood those conditions and their justifications—\nconfirmed his intent. See Lewis, 823 F.3d at 1083. This conduct\nresulted in a waiver of Tjader’s appellate challenges.1\n Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.\n\n\n\n\n 1 Tjader argues, and the government agrees, that the mandate to no‐\ntify “third parties” of “the risks” that his “history” and “characteristics”\npose is vague. Tjader’s waiver of this point is dispositive. See Raney, 842\nF.3d at 1044. We do, however, note that Tjader may later seek modification\nof this condition. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); United States v. Williams, 840 F.3d\n865 (7th Cir. 2016) (per curiam). As the district court informed Tjader at\nsentencing, he can ask the court to modify his conditions after he is re‐\nleased to the extent such modifications are appropriate.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: United States v. David Tjader\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-06-12\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18‐2447\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff‐Appellee,\\n v.\\n\\nDAVID TJADER,\\n Defendant‐Appellant.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Western District of Wisconsin.\\n No. 3:17CR00100‐001 — William M. Conley, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED APRIL 24, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 12, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before KANNE, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.\\n ST. EVE, Circuit Judge. In this appeal, David Tjader chal‐\\nlenges several conditions of his supervised release on\\ngrounds he did not raise in the district court. Because he\\nwaived these challenges, we affirm.\\n Tjader purchased child pornography online from sellers in\\nthe Philippines. He asked one seller about recordings of girls\\n\\f2 No. 18‐2447\\n\\nunder 14 years old being tortured, raped, or killed. His con‐\\nduct involved over 250 different pornographic images and\\nvideos of prepubescent girls. Tjader pleaded guilty to one\\ncount of receiving child pornography. See 18 U.S.C.\\n§ 2252(a)(2),(b)(1).\\n A United States probation officer prepared a presentence\\ninvestigation report and a supervision plan. Tjader received a\\ncopy of this plan and confirmed with the district court that,\\nbefore sentencing, he reviewed and understood it. As part of\\nthe plan, the probation officer proposed the following\\nsupervised‐release terms—terms that Tjader now challenges\\non appeal:\\n Condition 1: Defendant shall not leave the judicial\\n district in which defendant is being supervised without the\\n permission of the Court or probation officer.\\n Condition 2: Defendant … shall … follow the [pro‐\\n bation] officer’s instructions … .\\n Condition 11: As directed by the probation officer,\\n defendant shall notify third parties of risks that may be oc‐\\n casioned by defendant’s criminal record or personal history\\n or characteristics … .\\n Condition 12: Provide the supervising U.S. proba‐\\n tion officer any and all requested financial information, in‐\\n cluding copies of state and federal tax returns.\\n Condition 16: As approved by the supervising U.S.\\n Probation Officer, undergo psychosexual evaluations,\\n which may involve use of polygraph examinations. Defend‐\\n ant shall participate in an outpatient sex offender counsel‐\\n ing program if recommended by the evaluator, … .\\n Condition 17: Not meet or spend time with any per‐\\n son under the age of 18 or have verbal, written, telephonic\\n\\fNo. 18‐2447 3\\n\\n or electronic communication with any such person … . This\\n provision does not include persons under the age of 18, such\\n as waiters, cashiers, ticket vendors, etc., with whom defend‐\\n ant must deal in order to obtain ordinary and usual com‐\\n mercial services.\\n Condition 18: Not work in any occupation, business\\n or profession, or participate in any volunteer activity where\\n he has access to children under the age of 18 without the\\n prior approval of the supervising U.S. probation officer.\\n Tjader initially objected to only two of these conditions rel‐\\nevant to this appeal. First, he argued that Condition 12 (re‐\\nquiring that he provide financial information upon request)\\nwas an “excessive intrusion” and “not rationally designed to\\nsupervise him” because his crime was not financial in nature.\\nSecond, he argued that Condition 16 (requiring psychosexual\\nevaluation and potentially counseling) was impermissible to\\nthe extent that it authorized Abel Screening and plethysmo‐\\ngraph examinations (tests that measure sexual interest) and\\npolygraph tests because those tests, he said, must be shown\\nto be reliable under Daubert before they could be used. (Tjader\\nobjected to other conditions as well, but he does not challenge\\nthem on appeal.)\\n The court addressed Tjader’s objections in detail, over‐\\nruled them, and adopted the proposed conditions. The court\\nthen asked Tjader whether it should read and justify the re‐\\nmaining conditions or adopt the supervision plan’s recitation\\nof them and their explanations. Tjader responded that he\\n“waive[d] the reading of any justification of the additional\\nconditions that [he] did not object to.” He also acknowledged\\nthat he reviewed the conditions with counsel and that he un‐\\nderstood them and their justifications. The court sentenced\\n\\f4 No. 18‐2447\\n\\nTjader to seven years in prison and ten years of supervised\\nrelease, and it ordered him to pay restitution.\\n On appeal, Tjader again challenges Condition 12 (the\\nfinancial‐monitoring condition) and Condition 16 (the\\nevaluation and treatment condition), but he does so on new\\ngrounds. For Condition 12, rather than argue as he did in the\\ndistrict court that it is unduly burdensome, he now asserts\\nthat the district court gave inadequate reasons for imposing\\nit. For Condition 16, he now primarily argues that the court\\nimpermissibly delegated its authority to non‐judicial actors.\\nHe also contests other conditions for the first time.\\n We review preserved arguments for abuse of discretion\\nand forfeited ones for plain error. See United States v. Bickart,\\n825 F.3d 832, 839 (7th Cir. 2016). Waived arguments—those\\nthat are intentionally relinquished—we cannot review at all.\\nSee United States v. Bloch, 825 F.3d 862, 873 (7th Cir. 2016).\\n Tjader waived all of his appellate arguments against the\\nsupervisory conditions. When a defendant has received ad‐\\nvanced notice of conditions of supervised release and is in‐\\nvited to object to them in the district court, a “failure to object\\n… can amount to waiver.” United States v. Gabriel, 831 F.3d\\n811, 814 (7th Cir. 2016); see also United States v. Raney, 842 F.3d\\n1041, 1044 (7th Cir. 2016). Tjader had advanced notice of the\\nconditions because they were in the supervision plan, which\\nhe received before sentencing. See United States v. Gumila, 879\\nF.3d 831, 838 (7th Cir. 2018); United States v. Lewis, 823 F.3d\\n1075, 1082 (7th Cir. 2016). The district court also confirmed\\nthat Tjader had time to review them and that he understood\\nthem. See Gumila, 879 F.3d at 838; Bloch, 825 F.3d at 873. And\\nbefore sentencing, when the district court invited Tjader to\\npresent his objections to the conditions, Tjader raised some\\n\\fNo. 18‐2447 5\\n\\nobjections (not raised on appeal), but not others. We may infer\\nfrom his choice to raise these other objections that his decision\\nnot to raise the ones he now advances on appeal was strategic\\nand intentional. See Gumila, 879 F.3d at 838; United States v.\\nRanjel, 872 F.3d 815, 821–22 (7th Cir. 2017). Tjader’s decision\\nto waive an explanation of the remaining conditions—noting\\nthat he understood those conditions and their justifications—\\nconfirmed his intent. See Lewis, 823 F.3d at 1083. This conduct\\nresulted in a waiver of Tjader’s appellate challenges.1\\n Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 1 Tjader argues, and the government agrees, that the mandate to no‐\\ntify “third parties” of “the risks” that his “history” and “characteristics”\\npose is vague. Tjader’s waiver of this point is dispositive. See Raney, 842\\nF.3d at 1044. We do, however, note that Tjader may later seek modification\\nof this condition. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); United States v. Williams, 840 F.3d\\n865 (7th Cir. 2016) (per curiam). As the district court informed Tjader at\\nsentencing, he can ask the court to modify his conditions after he is re‐\\nleased to the extent such modifications are appropriate.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2576,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4628979,"string":"4,628,979"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Mark Richardson v. CTA"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-06-12"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-2199"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before FLAUM, KANNE, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\nMARK RICHARDSON,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nCHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY,\\n Defendant-Appellee.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeals from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 16-cv-03027— John Robert Blakey, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED MAY 14, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 12, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before FLAUM, KANNE, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\\n FLAUM, Circuit Judge. Mark Richardson, a former Chicago\\nTransit Authority (“CTA”) bus operator, alleged CTA took ad-\\nverse action against him because of his extreme obesity in vi-\\nolation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990\\n(“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101–12213, as amended by the ADA\\nAmendments Act of 2008 (“ADAAA”), Pub. L. No. 110-325,\\n122 Stat. 3553. The district court disagreed. It held extreme\\nobesity only qualifies as a disability under the ADA if it is\\n\\f2 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\n\\ncaused by an underlying physiological disorder or condition,\\nand granted CTA’s motion for summary judgment because\\nRichardson offered no such evidence. Richardson appeals this\\nholding, as well as the district court’s decision to tax costs\\nagainst him. We affirm.\\n I. Background\\n Mark Richardson began working for CTA in 1993 as a tem-\\nporary bus operator, and he worked as a full-time operator\\nfrom August 1999 until February 2012. According to a CTA\\ndoctor, Richardson weighed 350 pounds in January 2005. And\\nanother CTA doctor indicated Richardson weighed 566\\npounds in May 2009. Based on his Body Mass Index (a stand-\\nardized weight-to-height ratio used to determine whether an\\nindividual is underweight, within the normal weight range,\\noverweight, or obese) Richardson has “extreme” obesity\\nwhenever he weighs over 315 pounds. He also suffers from\\nhypertension and sleep apnea.\\n Beginning in early February 2010, Richardson was absent\\nfrom work because he had the flu. He attempted to return to\\nwork on February 19, but Advanced Occupational Medicine\\nServices (“AOMS”)—CTA’s third-party medical provider—\\ndocumented that Richardson had uncontrolled hypertension\\nand influenza, weighed over 400 pounds, and could not re-\\nturn to work until he controlled his blood pressure. For that\\nreason, on April 9, CTA’s Disability Review Committee trans-\\nferred Richardson to Temporary Medical Disability–Area 605\\n(“Area 605”). CTA administrative procedures define Area 605\\nas a “budgetary assignment for eligible union employees who\\nhave been found medically unfit to perform the essential\\nfunctions of their job classification due to an illness or injury.”\\n\\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 3\\n\\n On September 13, 2010, AOMS examined Richardson’s fit-\\nness to return to work. It found Richardson “physically fit to\\nwork as a bus operator,” but indicated Richardson “must be\\ncleared by safety prior to operating [a] bus.” CTA requires\\nAOMS to report if a bus operator returning from extended\\nleave weighs over 400 pounds because CTA bus seats are not\\ndesigned to accommodate drivers weighing over 400 pounds.\\nWeighing over this maximum does not, however, automati-\\ncally disqualify employees from working as bus operators.\\nCTA permits such employees to operate buses if the safety de-\\npartment finds they can safely perform their job. To make this\\ndetermination, CTA administers a “special assessment,” a\\ndriving performance test used to determine whether bus op-\\nerators can perform all standard operating procedures on six\\ntypes of CTA buses.\\n On September 16, 2010, Richardson completed a special\\nassessment. CTA’s Acting Manager of Bus Instruction, Marie\\nStewart, assigned Bus Instructors John Durnell and Elon\\nMcElroy to administer the test. During the assessment, Dur-\\nnell and McElroy joked about Richardson’s weight. Durnell\\ntestified he was just trying “to lighten up the situation,” and\\nasserted that in response, Richardson “started laughing and\\nhe started to relax.” Nevertheless, McElroy reported Durnell’s\\ncomments to Stewart, and Stewart reprimanded Durnell for\\nunprofessionalism.\\n Following the assessment, Durnell and McElroy each com-\\npleted a report. While Durnell concluded Richardson “can\\ndrive all of CTA’s buses in a safe and trusted manner,” both\\ninstructors noted several safety concerns: Richardson cross-\\npedaled, meaning his foot was on the gas and brake at the\\nsame time; Richardson was unable to make hand-over-hand\\n\\f4 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\n\\nturns; Richardson’s leg rested close to the door handle; Rich-\\nardson could not see the floor of the bus from his seat; part of\\nRichardson’s body hung off the driver’s seat; and the seat de-\\nflated when Richardson sat. Additionally, both instructors\\nnoted Richardson wore a seatbelt extender, wrote that Rich-\\nardson was “sweating heavily” and needed to lean onto the\\nbus for balance, and Durnell commented on a “hygiene prob-\\nlem.” At his deposition, McElroy testified that as a “former\\nheart patient,” he was worried Richardson’s “sweating\\n[could] lead to an episode.”\\n Stewart drafted a memorandum to CTA’s Vice President\\nof Bus Operations, Earl Swopes, concluding that “[b]ased on\\nthe Bus Instructors[’] observations and findings, the limited\\nspace in the driver’s area and the manufacturer requirements,\\nit would be unsafe for Bus Operator Richardson to operate\\nany CTA bus at this time.” She specifically referenced the\\nsafety concerns listed above. Moreover, Stewart wrote that\\n“[t]he maximum allowable weight per the manufacturer re-\\nquirements for CTA buses is 400 pounds,” and “[i]t has been\\nrepresented that Operator Richardson is over that weight\\nmaximum.” Because Richardson failed the assessment and\\ncould not adhere to all CTA operating procedures, Swopes\\ndetermined that Richardson could not safely operate CTA\\nbuses. Swopes testified he based this decision solely on Stew-\\nart’s memorandum, without any independent investigation.\\n Instead of immediately terminating Richardson’s employ-\\nment, CTA proposed a written agreement: CTA would trans-\\nfer Richardson back to Area 605 so he could work with doc-\\ntors to lose weight and be subject to periodic monitoring; in\\nexchange, Richardson would release his ability to bring vari-\\nous causes of action. Richardson refused. In March 2011, CTA\\n\\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 5\\n\\nnonetheless transferred Richardson to Area 605; the accompa-\\nnying form provides as a rationale that Richardson “exceeded\\nthe weight requirement to operate the bus.” In October 2011,\\nCTA informed Richardson that he was approaching two years\\nof inactive status, and per CTA policy, he could extend his\\ntime in Area 605 by one year by submitting medical documen-\\ntation. Richardson did not submit documentation, and in Feb-\\nruary 2012, CTA terminated his employment.\\n On December 15, 2015, the Equal Employment Oppor-\\ntunity Commission (“EEOC”) issued Richardson a right-to-\\nsue letter, and on March 10, 2016, Richardson brought the op-\\nerative complaint against CTA, alleging it violated the ADA\\nby “refus[ing] to allow [him] to return to work because it re-\\ngarded him as being too obese to work as a bus operator.” On\\nOctober 17, 2016, the district court denied CTA’s motion to\\ndismiss, ruling that “[e]ven if [Richardson] is ultimately re-\\nquired to prove that his obesity was caused by a physiological\\ndisorder, he is not required to allege the same.” On April 20,\\n2017, Richardson and CTA filed cross-motions for summary\\njudgment, and on November 13, 2017, the district court de-\\nnied Richardson’s motion and granted CTA’s motion. It held,\\nbased on the language of the ADA and the pertinent EEOC\\nregulation and interpretive guidance, that “to qualify as a pro-\\ntected physical impairment, claimants under the ADA must\\nshow that their severe obesity is caused by an underlying\\nphysiological disorder or condition.” Because Richardson\\npresented no such evidence, the district court entered judg-\\nment in CTA’s favor.\\n On December 7, 2017, CTA filed its bill of costs, seeking to\\nrecover $7,333.56 in deposition and copying costs as the pre-\\nvailing party pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\\n\\f6 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\n\\n54(d)(1). Richardson argued costs should not be taxed because\\nof his inability to pay, or alternatively, CTA’s costs should be\\nreduced because transcript delivery fees are not recoverable\\nand the transcript costs CTA sought were over the rate al-\\nlowed by local rules. On May 1, 2018, the district court issued\\na minute order taxing $2,067.26 in costs. It denied copying\\ncosts because the documents were available on the electronic\\ndocket, and it reduced deposition transcript costs.\\n Richardson separately appealed the district court’s grant\\nof CTA’s motion for summary judgment and decision to tax\\ncosts. We consolidated the appeals for resolution.\\n II. Discussion\\n A. The ADA and Obesity\\n We review cross-motions for summary judgment de novo,\\n“construing all facts and drawing all reasonable inferences in\\nfavor of the party against whom the motion under considera-\\ntion was filed.” Hess v. Bd. of Trs. of S. Ill. Univ., 839 F.3d 668,\\n673 (7th Cir. 2016). Here, we consider only CTA’s motion for\\nsummary judgment, so we draw all facts in favor of Richard-\\nson. Summary judgment is proper “where there are no genu-\\nine issues of material fact and the movant is entitled to judg-\\nment as a matter of law.” Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)).\\n The ADA prohibits employers from “discriminat[ing]\\nagainst a qualified individual on the basis of disability.”\\n42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). To succeed on an ADA claim, an em-\\nployee must show: “(1) he is disabled; (2) he is otherwise qual-\\nified to perform the essential functions of the job with or with-\\nout reasonable accommodation; and (3) the adverse job action\\nwas caused by his disability.” Roberts v. City of Chicago, 817\\nF.3d 561, 565 (7th Cir. 2016).\\n\\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 7\\n\\n The ADA defines disability as: “(A) a physical or mental\\nimpairment that substantially limits one or more major life ac-\\ntivities of [an] individual; (B) a record of such an impairment;\\nor (C) being regarded as having such an impairment.”\\n42 U.S.C. § 12102(1). Richardson focuses his claim on the “re-\\ngarded as” prong. To succeed, he must establish he was sub-\\nject to a prohibited employment action “because of an actual\\nor perceived physical or mental impairment whether or not\\nthe impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life ac-\\ntivity.” Id. § 12102(3)(A). At issue here, then, is whether Rich-\\nardson can demonstrate either: (1) his extreme obesity is an\\nactual impairment; or (2) CTA perceived his extreme obesity\\nto be an impairment.\\n 1. Actual Impairment\\n Congress has not defined “impairment.” In a regulation\\nimplementing the ADA, however, the EEOC defined “physi-\\ncal impairment” as: “Any physiological disorder or condition,\\ncosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or\\nmore body systems, such as neurological, musculoskeletal,\\nspecial sense organs, respiratory (including speech organs),\\ncardiovascular, reproductive, digestive, genitourinary, im-\\nmune, circulatory, hemic, lymphatic, skin, and endocrine.” 29\\nC.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1). EEOC regulations interpreting the ADA\\nare entitled to deference under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural\\nResources Defense Council, Inc., unless they are “arbitrary, ca-\\npricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.” 467 U.S. 837,\\n844 (1984); see Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 130 F.3d 893, 899\\nn.3 (10th Cir. 1997).\\n Richardson and CTA disagree about whether his extreme\\nobesity—even without evidence of an underlying physiolog-\\nical condition—meets the definition of physical impairment\\n\\f8 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\n\\nand is thus an actionable disability for ADA purposes. This is\\nan issue of first impression for this Circuit. However, three of\\nour sister circuits have considered the question; each has held,\\nbased on the language of 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1), that obesity\\nis an ADA impairment only if it is the result of an underlying\\n“physiological disorder or condition.” See Morriss v. BNSF Ry.\\nCo., 817 F.3d 1104, 1108–13 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 256\\n(2016); EEOC v. Watkins Motor Lines, Inc., 463 F.3d 436, 441–43\\n(6th Cir. 2006); Francis v. City of Meriden, 129 F.3d 281, 286–87\\n(2d Cir. 1997).1 The majority of district courts have also ex-\\npressed this view.2 In contrast, only a small number of district\\ncourts have held extreme obesity is an ADA impairment even\\nwithout evidence of a physiological cause. See, e.g., Velez v.\\nCloghan Concepts, LLC, No. 18-cv-1901, 2019 WL 2423145, at *4\\n(S.D. Cal. June 10, 2019); Velez v. II Fornanio (Am.) Corp., No.\\n18-cv-1840, 2018 WL 6446169, at *2–4 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2018);\\nMcCollum v. Livingston, No. 14-cv-3253, 2017 WL 608665, at\\n\\n 1 The Ninth Circuit has acknowledged that “the scope of ADA protec-\\n\\ntion for individuals suffering from obesity … presents an open question\\nof federal law in this circuit,” but it has not had to resolve the issue. Taylor\\nv. Burlington N. R.R. Holdings, Inc., 904 F.3d 846, 851–53 (9th Cir. 2018).\\n 2 See, e.g., Sturgill v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., No. 18-cv-566, 2019 WL 1063374,\\n\\nat *3–4 (E.D. Va. Mar. 6, 2019); Shell v. Burlington N. Santa Fe Ry. Co., No.\\n15-cv-11040, 2018 WL 1156249, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 5, 2018); Brownwood v.\\nWells Trucking, LLC, No. 16-cv-01264, 2017 WL 9289453, at *6 (D. Colo.\\nNov. 9, 2017); Silva v. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs for the Cty. of Roosevelt, No. 15-cv-\\n1046, 2017 WL 4325769, at *7–8 (D.N.M. Sept. 26, 2017); Valtierra v. Med-\\ntronic Inc., 232 F. Supp. 3d 1117, 1123–25 (D. Ariz. 2017); Revolinski v.\\nAmtrak, No. 08-cv-1098, 2011 WL 2037015, at *11 (E.D. Wis. May 24, 2011);\\nHayes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 781 F. Supp. 2d 1080, 1091 (D. Or. 2011); Ni\\nv. Rite Aid of N.J., No. 10-cv-1522, 2010 WL 2557523, at *3 (D.N.J. June 22,\\n2010); Hill v. Verizon Md., Inc., No. 07-cv-3123, 2009 WL 2060088, at *6 (D.\\nMd. July 13, 2009).\\n\\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 9\\n\\n*35 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 3, 2017); EEOC v. Res. for Human Dev., Inc.,\\n827 F. Supp. 2d 688, 693–95 (E.D. La. 2011); Lowe v. Am. Eu-\\nrocopter, LLC, No. 10-cv-24, 2010 WL 5232523, at *7–8 (N.D.\\nMiss. Dec. 16, 2010).3 We join the Second, Sixth, and Eighth\\nCircuits. Without evidence that Richardson’s extreme obesity\\nwas caused by a physiological disorder or condition, his obe-\\nsity is not a physical impairment under the plain language of\\nthe EEOC regulation.\\n In his arguments to the contrary, Richardson focuses first\\non the ADAAA. Congress passed these amendments in 2008\\nto ensure that the ADA’s “definition of disability … be con-\\nstrued in favor of broad coverage.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(4)(A).\\nCongress emphasized “that the primary object of attention in\\ncases brought under the ADA should be whether entities cov-\\nered under the ADA have complied with their obligations,”\\nwhile “the question of whether an individual’s impairment is\\na disability under the ADA should not demand extensive\\nanalysis.” ADAAA § 2(b)(5), 122 Stat. at 3554.\\n Specifically, Congress sought to broaden the scope of the\\n“being regarded as having such an impairment” definition of\\ndisability. Id. § 2(b)(3); see Miller v. Ill. Dep’t of Transp., 643 F.3d\\n190, 196 (7th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he ‘regarded as’ prong is an im-\\nportant protection that should not be nullified by creating an\\nimpossibly high standard of proof, as Congress indicated\\neven more strongly in the 2008 amendments.”). It rejected the\\nSupreme Court’s decision in Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc.,\\n\\n\\n\\n 3 The Montana Supreme Court reached a similar conclusion, discuss-\\ning the ADA when interpreting the analogous Montana law. BNSF Ry. Co.\\nv. Feit, 281 P.3d 225, 230–31 (Mont. 2012).\\n\\f10 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\n\\n527 U.S. 471 (1999), which held that to be regarded as disa-\\nbled, an employee’s disability must substantially limit a major\\nlife activity. See id. at 490 (“An employer runs afoul of the\\nADA when it makes an employment decision based on a\\nphysical or mental impairment, real or imagined, that is re-\\ngarded as substantially limiting a major life activity.”). There-\\nfore, Congress amended the ADA to make clear an individual\\ncan be “regarded as” having an impairment “whether or not\\nthe impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life ac-\\ntivity,” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(3)(A), and the EEOC adopted regu-\\nlations to the same effect. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(2)\\n(“Whether an individual’s impairment ‘substantially limits’ a\\nmajor life activity is not relevant to coverage under … the ‘re-\\ngarded as’ prong.”); id. § 1630.2(l)(1).\\n Additionally, Congress relaxed court-imposed rules as to\\nhow severe an impairment must be to be considered a disa-\\nbility. It sought to abrogate the Supreme Court’s decisions in\\nSutton and Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Wil-\\nliams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002), because the Court’s definition of\\n“substantially limits a major life activity” in those cases “cre-\\nated an inappropriately high level of limitation necessary to\\nobtain coverage under the ADA” by requiring that employees\\nhave an impairment that “severely restrict[ed]” a major life\\nactivity. ADAAA § 2(b)(2)–(5), 122 Stat. at 3554.4 It found that\\n\\n 4See Toyota, 534 U.S. at 197–98 (holding “substantially” and “major”\\n“need to be interpreted strictly to create a demanding standard for quali-\\nfying as disabled,” and therefore, to be disabled “an individual must have\\nan impairment that prevents or severely restricts the individual from do-\\ning activities that are of central importance to most people’s daily lives”);\\nSutton, 527 U.S. at 482–83 (“A person whose physical or mental impair-\\nment is corrected by medication or other measures does not have an im-\\npairment that presently ‘substantially limits’ a major life activity.”).\\n\\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 11\\n\\nEEOC regulations “defining the term ‘substantially limits’ as\\n‘significantly restricted’ [were] inconsistent with congres-\\nsional intent[] by expressing too high a standard,” and ex-\\npressed its “expectation” that the EEOC would revise its reg-\\nulations. Id. § 2(a)(8), (b)(6). The EEOC adhered to this di-\\nrective. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii) (“An impairment need\\nnot prevent, or significantly or severely restrict, the individual\\nfrom performing a major life activity in order to be considered\\nsubstantially limiting.”); id. § 1630.2(i)(2) (“[T]he term ‘major’\\nshall not be interpreted strictly to create a demanding stand-\\nard for disability.”).\\n Richardson contends that after the ADAAA, courts must\\nbroadly construe impairment to encompass extreme obesity,\\neven without evidence of an underlying physiological condi-\\ntion. Cf. EEOC v. BNSF Ry. Co., 902 F.3d 916, 923 (9th Cir. 2018)\\n(“impairment” should be interpreted “broadly” after the\\nADAAA). We disagree. While Congress criticized the Su-\\npreme Court’s understanding of “substantially limits a major\\nlife activity” at length, it said nothing about judicial interpre-\\ntation of impairment. See Morriss, 817 F.3d at 1111. Likewise,\\nwhile Congress instructed the EEOC to alter its definitions of\\n“substantially limits” and “major life activity,” it made no\\nsuch instruction with respect to the EEOC’s definition of im-\\npairment. See id. Indeed, the ADAAA’s legislative history ex-\\nplicitly states that Congress “expect[ed] that the currently reg-\\nulatory definition of [physical or mental impairment], as\\npromulgated by agencies such as the [EEOC] … [would] not\\nchange.” Statement of the Managers to Accompany S. 3406,\\nThe Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of\\n2008, 154 Cong. Rec. S8342-01, S8345 (Sept. 11, 2008). The\\nEEOC therefore did not modify its regulation defining im-\\n\\f12 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\n\\npairment, and even after the ADAAA, the definition of phys-\\nical impairment remains inextricably tied to a “physiological\\ndisorder or condition.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1); see Morriss,\\n817 F.3d at 1111 (“The ADAAA’s general policy statement\\ncannot trump this plain language.”).\\n Next, Richardson insists that we must interpret the\\nEEOC’s definition of physical impairment in light of EEOC\\ninterpretive guidance. That guidance, which interprets both\\nthe ADA and the EEOC regulation, states:\\n It is important to distinguish between condi-\\n tions that are impairments and physical, psy-\\n chological, environmental, cultural, and eco-\\n nomic characteristics that are not impairments.\\n The definition of the term “impairment” does\\n not include physical characteristics such as eye\\n color, hair color, left-handedness, or height,\\n weight, or muscle tone that are within “normal”\\n range and are not the result of a physiological\\n disorder.\\n29 C.F.R. pt. 1630, app. § 1630.2(h). While EEOC interpretive\\nguidance is “not entitled to full Chevron deference,” it does\\n“reflect a body of experience and informed judgment to which\\ncourts and litigants may properly resort for guidance” and is\\ntherefore “entitled to a measure of respect under the less def-\\nerential Skidmore [v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944)] stand-\\nard.” Fed. Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389, 399 (2008)\\n(citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see Gile v.\\nUnited Airlines, Inc., 95 F.3d 492, 497 (7th Cir. 1996).\\n According to Richardson, this EEOC guidance specifies\\nthat “impairment does not include the physical characteristic\\n\\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 13\\n\\nof weight if both of the following elements are present: (1) the\\nweight [is] within the normal range; and (2) the weight is not\\nthe result of a physiological disorder.” The Montana Supreme\\nCourt adopted this interpretation. BNSF Ry. Co. v. Feit, 281\\nP.3d 225, 229 (Mont. 2012). So did at least three district courts.\\nSee Velez, 2019 WL 2423145, at *4; Velez, 2018 WL 6446169, at\\n*4; Res. for Human Dev., 827 F. Supp. 2d at 694. Removing the\\nnegatives, Richardson posits that “[i]mpairment does include\\nthe physical characteristic of weight if either of the following\\nelements are true: (1) the weight is not within the normal\\nrange; or (2) the weight is the result of a physiological disor-\\nder.”\\n Like the Eighth Circuit, we do not find this reading of the\\ninterpretive guidance persuasive. Rather, “a more natural\\nreading of the interpretive guidance is that an individual’s\\nweight is generally a physical characteristic that qualifies as a\\nphysical impairment only if it falls outside the normal range\\nand it occurs as the result of a physiological disorder.” Morriss,\\n817 F.3d at 1108. As the Eighth Circuit reasoned, “reading …\\nthe EEOC interpretive guidance in its entirety supports this\\nconclusion” because, for example, “the interpretive guidance\\nalso provides that ‘[o]ther conditions, such as pregnancy, that\\nare not the result of a physiological disorder are also not im-\\npairments.’” Id. at 1108–09 (alteration in original) (quoting\\n29 C.F.R. pt. 1630, app. § 1630.2(h)).\\n Moreover, Richardson’s preferred interpretation is over-\\nbroad. If we were to read the EEOC interpretive guidance in\\nthe way he suggests, even an employee with normal weight\\ncould claim a weight-based physical impairment if his weight\\nwas the result of a physiological disorder. Likewise, any em-\\nployee whose weight—or other physical characteristic—is\\n\\f14 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\n\\neven slightly outside the “normal range” would have a phys-\\nical impairment even with no underlying physiological cause.\\nSuch results are inconsistent with the ADA’s text and purpose\\nand must be rejected. Otherwise, “the ‘regarded as’ prong …\\nwould become a catch-all cause of action for discrimination\\nbased on appearance, size, and any number of other things far\\nremoved from the reasons the [ADA] [was] passed.” Watkins,\\n463 F.3d at 443 (quoting Francis, 129 F.3d at 287).\\n In any event, even if this interpretive guidance means\\nwhat Richardson says it means, we do not defer to EEOC\\nguidance that is contrary to the text of the regulation it pur-\\nports to interpret. See Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.,\\n567 U.S. 142, 155 (2012) (“Deference is undoubtedly inappro-\\npriate … when the agency’s interpretation is ‘plainly errone-\\nous or inconsistent with the regulation.’” (quoting Auer v. Rob-\\nbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461 (1997))). The EEOC defines physical im-\\npairment as a “physiological disorder or condition.” 29 C.F.R.\\n§ 1630.2(h)(1). It is directly contrary to that definition to con-\\nsider a physical characteristic such as weight, even if outside\\nthe “normal range,” a physical impairment absent evidence\\nof an underlying physiological condition.5\\n\\n\\n 5 Richardson also emphasizes the EEOC has consistently expressed its\\n\\nview that extreme obesity is a physical impairment. In a compliance man-\\nual, the EEOC stated that while “[b]eing overweight, in and of itself, gen-\\nerally is not an impairment …, severe obesity, which has been defined as\\nbody weight more than 100% over the norm, is clearly an impairment.”\\nEEOC Compliance Manual § 902.2(c)(5)(ii) (2012) (citations and footnotes\\nomitted). The EEOC has also taken this position in litigation, both as plain-\\ntiff and amicus. True, courts may generally defer to both EEOC policy\\nstatements in a compliance manual and EEOC’s interpretation of its own\\nregulation in legal briefs. Christopher, 567 U.S. at 155; Holowecki, 552 U.S. at\\n399; see Bible v. United Student Aid Funds, Inc., 799 F.3d 633, 663 (7th Cir.\\n\\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 15\\n\\n Patient and scientific professional organizations, as amici\\ncuriae, make a somewhat related, but distinct argument. They\\ninsist that because both the medical community6 and federal\\nand state policymakers7 understand obesity as a disease, obe-\\nsity is in and of itself a physiological disorder and therefore a\\n\\n\\n\\n2015) (Flaum, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment) (“[I]t\\nis generally appropriate to defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own\\nregulations, even when that interpretation is informally announced.”).\\nHere, however, neither the compliance manual nor EEOC’s litigation po-\\nsition are entitled to our deference. For one, the EEOC removed this para-\\ngraph from its compliance manual in 2012. See EEOC, Section 902 Defini-\\ntion of the Term Disability (2012), https://www.eeoc.gov/pol-\\nicy/docs/902cm.html. And more importantly, the EEOC’s position is in di-\\nrect conflict with the regulation because it considers extreme obesity a\\nphysical impairment even without evidence of an underlying physiologi-\\ncal disorder or condition. See Morriss, 817 F.3d at 1111 n.4, 1112.\\n 6 For example, the American Medical Association describes “obesity\\nas a disease state with multiple pathophysiological aspects requiring a\\nrange of interventions to advance obesity treatment and prevention.” Am.\\nMed. Assoc. House of Delegates, Recognition of Obesity as a Disease (2013),\\nhttps://www.npr.org/documents/2013/jun/ama-resolution-obesity.pdf.\\nLikewise, the World Health Organization concluded “obesity should be\\nconsidered a disease in its own right.” World Health Org., Obesity and\\nOverweight (2003), http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/me-\\ndia/en/gsfs_obesity.pdf. And the National Institutes of Health said “[o]be-\\nsity is a complex, multifactorial chronic disease.” Nat’l Insts. of Health,\\nClinical Guidelines on the Identification, Evaluation, and Treatment of Over-\\nweight and Obesity in Adults, at xi (1998),\\nhttps://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/files/docs/guidelines/ob_gdlns.pdf.\\n 7 For instance, the Internal Revenue Service decided an individual\\ncould deduct costs of a weight-loss program as a medical care expense\\nbecause he had “a disease, obesity,” I.R.S. Rev. Rul. 2002-19, 2002 WL\\n484628 (Apr. 2, 2002), and the Social Security Administration recognized\\nobesity as “a complex, chronic disease characterized by excessive accumu-\\n\\f16 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\n\\nphysical impairment within the definition of the ADA. This\\nargument is not persuasive. The ADA is an antidiscrimina-\\ntion—not a public health—statute, and Congress’s desires as\\nit relates to the ADA do not necessarily align with those of the\\nmedical community. Moreover, amici’s argument proves too\\nmuch; if we agreed that obesity is itself a physiological disor-\\nder, then all obesity would be an ADA impairment. While\\nRichardson does not ask us to hold that all obese individu-\\nals—found to be as high as 39.8% of the American adult pop-\\nulation8—automatically have an ADA impairment, adopting\\namici’s position leads to this unavoidable, nonrealistic result.\\n At bottom, Richardson does not present any evidence sug-\\ngesting an underlying physiological disorder or condition\\ncaused his extreme obesity.9 Without such evidence, we can-\\nnot call Richardson’s extreme obesity a physical impairment\\n\\n\\n\\nlation of body fat.” SSR 00-3p, 2000 WL 33952015 (May 15, 2000). Addi-\\ntionally, in 2017, the Senate passed by unanimous consent a resolution in\\nsupport of “National Obesity Care Week,” recognizing “the disease of\\nobesity,” S. Res. 325, 115th Cong. (2017), and in 2018, the National Lieu-\\ntenant Governors Association passed a resolution which called obesity “a\\nchronic disease.” Nat’l Lieutenant Governors Ass’n, Resolution in Support\\nof the Treatment and Prevention of Obesity (June 29, 2018),\\nhttps://www.nlga.us/wp-content/uploads/2018-Resolution-in-Support-\\nof-the-Prevention-and-Treatment-of-Obesity-2.pdf.\\n 8 See U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., Prevalence of Obesity Among\\n\\nAdults and Youth: United States, 2015–2016 (Oct. 2017),\\nhttps://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db288.pdf.\\n 9True, Richardson’s pulmonologist submitted a declaration stating\\nRichardson’s hypertension and sleep apnea were “related to” his obesity.\\nHowever, there is nothing in the record suggesting Richardson’s hyper-\\ntension or sleep apnea caused his obesity.\\n\\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 17\\n\\nwithin the meaning of the ADA and the EEOC regulation. See\\nMorriss, 817 F.3d at 1112; Watkins, 463 F.3d at 443.10\\n 2. Perceived Impairment\\n Alternatively, Richardson argues that even if we hold ex-\\ntreme obesity is not itself an impairment, he is still disabled\\nunder the ADA because CTA perceived his obesity to be a\\nphysical impairment. See 42 U.S.C. § 12102(3)(A). To succeed\\non this claim, Richardson must show CTA took adverse action\\nagainst him based on the belief that his condition was an im-\\npairment—as the ADA defines that term—not merely based\\non knowledge of Richardson’s physical characteristic. See\\nMorriss, 817 F.3d at 1113 (“[A]s a threshold matter, [the em-\\nployee] was required to show that [the employer] perceived\\nhis obesity to be a condition that met the definition of ‘physi-\\ncal impairment.’”); Francis, 129 F.3d at 285 (“[T]he plaintiff\\nmust allege that the employer believed, however erroneously,\\n\\n\\n 10 Richardson also suggests the fact that he “suffered from extreme\\nobesity … alone is sufficient … to establish that he meets the definition of\\n‘disability’ under the ADA.” Cf. Watkins, 463 F.3d at 443–45 & n.1 (Gib-\", \"author\": \"Joel Martin Flaum\"}, {\"type\": \"concurrence\", \"author\": \"bons\", \"text\": \"bons, J., concurring) (opining that “[i]t is possible that morbid obesity is a\\ndisorder that by its very nature has a physiological cause,” but agreeing\\nsummary judgment was proper because the plaintiff put forth no evidence\\nto that effect); Cook v. State of R.I., Dep’t of Mental Health, Retardation, &\\nHosps., 10 F.3d 17, 23 (1st Cir. 1993) (concluding a jury could find that\\nplaintiff’s “morbid obesity” was a “physical impairment” because “she\\npresented expert testimony that morbid obesity is a physiological disorder\\ninvolving a dysfunction of both the metabolic system and the neurological\\nappetite-suppressing signal system, capable of causing adverse effects\\nwithin the musculoskeletal, respiratory, and cardiovascular system”). We\\nneed not decide whether, on a particular evidentiary showing, extreme\\nobesity alone can be considered a physiological condition because Rich-\\nardson presented no such evidence.\\n\\f18 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\n\\nthat the plaintiff suffered from an ‘impairment’ that, if it truly\\nexisted, would be covered under the [ADA] ….”). In other\\nwords, Richardson must present sufficient evidence to permit\\na reasonable jury to infer that CTA perceived his extreme obe-\\nsity was caused by an underlying physiological disorder or\\ncondition.\\n Richardson did not make this showing. To be sure, Rich-\\nardson introduced evidence that CTA took adverse action\\nagainst him based on his excessive weight. For example, CTA\\ntransferred Richardson to Area 605 because he exceeded the\\nweight specifications for CTA buses. Additionally, CTA re-\\nquired Richardson to take a special assessment because he\\nweighed over 400 pounds, not because of any violation of\\nCTA standard operating procedures. And in Stewart’s mem-\\norandum to Swopes summarizing the results of the special as-\\nsessment, she highlighted safety concerns directly related to\\nRichardson’s weight: he could not perform hand-over-hand\\nturning, he cross-pedaled, he had difficulty getting in and out\\nof the driver’s seat, his body hung off the seat, his leg was\\nclose to the door handle, and he exceeded the 400-pound max-\\nimum per CTA bus manufacturer requirements. But there is\\nno evidence Stewart, Swopes, or anyone else at CTA believed\\nRichardson’s excessive weight was caused by a physiological\\ndisorder or condition. To the contrary, the evidence suggests\\nCTA perceived Richardson’s weight as a physical characteris-\\ntic that made it unsafe for him to drive. These facts do not per-\\nmit a finding that CTA regarded Richardson as disabled for\\npurposes of ADA liability. See Francis, 129 F.3d at 287 (no lia-\\nbility where plaintiff “alleges only that [defendant] regarded\\nhim as disabled because it disciplined him for failing to meet\\na weight standard applied to all of its employees,” and not\\n\\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 19\\n\\n“because it perceived him as suffering from a physiological\\nweight-related disorder”).\\n Richardson cites to the First Circuit’s opinion in Cook v.\\nState of Rhode Island, Department of Mental Health, Retardation,\\n& Hospitals, 10 F.3d 17 (1st Cir. 1993), and suggests that the\\ncourt held a jury could find an employer perceived an em-\\nployee’s extreme obesity as a physical impairment merely be-\\ncause the employer “stated concerns about the plaintiff’s abil-\\nity to perform her job duties.” Richardson reads Cook too\\nbroadly. In Cook, the court affirmed a jury verdict in favor of\\nthe plaintiff under the identical “perceived disability” provi-\\nsion of the Rehabilitation Act. Id. at 23. The court explained\\nthat a jury could have found the defendant treated the plain-\\ntiff “as if she had a physical impairment” because the evi-\\ndence “show[ed] conclusively that [the defendant] treated\\nplaintiff’s obesity as if it actually affected her musculoskeletal\\nand cardiovascular systems.” Id. Critically, the court empha-\\nsized that the plaintiff presented “expert testimony that mor-\\nbid obesity is a physiological disorder.” Id. Here, by contrast,\\nRichardson presented no such evidence. The district court\\nthus properly held that CTA could not have perceived Rich-\\nardson as having a physical impairment within the ADA’s\\ndefinition.\\n B. Costs\\n “Unless a federal statute, [the Federal Rules of Civil Pro-\\ncedure], or a court order provides otherwise, costs—other\\nthan attorney’s fees—should be allowed to the prevailing\\nparty.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). “There is a presumption that\\nthe prevailing party will recover costs, and the losing party\\nbears the burden of an affirmative showing that taxed costs\\nare not appropriate.” Beamon v. Marshall & Ilsley Tr. Co., 411\\n\\f20 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\n\\nF.3d 854, 864 (7th Cir. 2005). This presumption “is difficult to\\novercome” and therefore, “the district court’s discretion is\\nnarrowly confined—the court must award costs unless it\\nstates good reasons for denying them.” Weeks v. Samsung\\nHeavy Indus. Co., 126 F.3d 926, 945 (7th Cir. 1997). We reverse\\na district court’s decision to award costs only after “a showing\\nof clear abuse of discretion.” Id.\\n We have held that “it is ‘within the discretion of the district\\ncourt to consider a plaintiff’s indigency’” when taxing costs\\nagainst him. Rivera v. City of Chicago, 469 F.3d 631, 634 (7th Cir.\\n2006) (quoting Badillo v. Cent. Steel & Wire Co., 717 F.2d 1160,\\n1165 (7th Cir. 1983)). To deny costs based on indigency, the\\ncourt must first “make a threshold factual finding that the los-\\ning party is ‘incapable of paying the court-imposed costs at\\nthis time or in the future.’” Id. at 635 (quoting McGill v. Faulk-\\nner, 18 F.3d 456, 459 (7th Cir. 1994)). “The burden is on the\\nlosing party to provide the district court with sufficient docu-\\nmentation to support such a finding.” Id. (internal quotation\\nmarks and citation omitted).\\n Richardson argues the district court abused its discretion\\nbecause it “completely failed to consider or address [his] ar-\\nguments and the evidence he submitted demonstrating his in-\\nability to pay the costs awarded at this time or in the future.”\\nWe disagree. To be sure, “district judges [must] provide at\\nleast a modicum of explanation when entering an award of\\ncosts.” Cengr v. Fusibond Piping Sys., Inc., 135 F.3d 445, 454 (7th\\nCir. 1998). Here however, the court provided an explanation.\\nIt made clear that CTA was entitled to costs as the prevailing\\nparty, and it provided an accounting of how it calculated costs\\nat $2,067.26 (significantly less than CTA’s initial $7,333.56 re-\\nquest). True, the district court did not mention Richardson’s\\n\\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 21\\n\\nclaim that he was indigent, but the indigence exception “is a\\nnarrow one” and “is not a blanket excuse for paying costs.”\\nRivera, 469 F.3d at 635–36. While we have held that a district\\ncourt abuses its discretion when it denies costs without expla-\\nnation on the basis of indigence, see id. at 636–37, Richardson\\ndoes not cite any case holding a district court abuses its dis-\\ncretion when it grants costs, with an explanation, but does not\\nexplicitly consider the plaintiff’s indigence. It was thus not\\nunreasonable for the district court to tax $2,067.26 in costs.\\n III. Conclusion\\n For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the\\ndistrict court.\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"FLAUM"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"KANNE"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"SCUDDER"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"FLAUM\": \", Circuit\", \"KANNE\": \", Circuit\", \"SCUDDER\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4628979/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":6,"string":"6"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Mark Richardson v. CTA\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-06-12\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: Yes\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\nMARK RICHARDSON,\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\n v.\n\nCHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY,\n Defendant-Appellee.\n ____________________\n\n Appeals from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 16-cv-03027— John Robert Blakey, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED MAY 14, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 12, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before FLAUM, KANNE, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\n FLAUM, Circuit Judge. Mark Richardson, a former Chicago\nTransit Authority (“CTA”) bus operator, alleged CTA took ad-\nverse action against him because of his extreme obesity in vi-\nolation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990\n(“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101–12213, as amended by the ADA\nAmendments Act of 2008 (“ADAAA”), Pub. L. No. 110-325,\n122 Stat. 3553. The district court disagreed. It held extreme\nobesity only qualifies as a disability under the ADA if it is\n\f2 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\n\ncaused by an underlying physiological disorder or condition,\nand granted CTA’s motion for summary judgment because\nRichardson offered no such evidence. Richardson appeals this\nholding, as well as the district court’s decision to tax costs\nagainst him. We affirm.\n I. Background\n Mark Richardson began working for CTA in 1993 as a tem-\nporary bus operator, and he worked as a full-time operator\nfrom August 1999 until February 2012. According to a CTA\ndoctor, Richardson weighed 350 pounds in January 2005. And\nanother CTA doctor indicated Richardson weighed 566\npounds in May 2009. Based on his Body Mass Index (a stand-\nardized weight-to-height ratio used to determine whether an\nindividual is underweight, within the normal weight range,\noverweight, or obese) Richardson has “extreme” obesity\nwhenever he weighs over 315 pounds. He also suffers from\nhypertension and sleep apnea.\n Beginning in early February 2010, Richardson was absent\nfrom work because he had the flu. He attempted to return to\nwork on February 19, but Advanced Occupational Medicine\nServices (“AOMS”)—CTA’s third-party medical provider—\ndocumented that Richardson had uncontrolled hypertension\nand influenza, weighed over 400 pounds, and could not re-\nturn to work until he controlled his blood pressure. For that\nreason, on April 9, CTA’s Disability Review Committee trans-\nferred Richardson to Temporary Medical Disability–Area 605\n(“Area 605”). CTA administrative procedures define Area 605\nas a “budgetary assignment for eligible union employees who\nhave been found medically unfit to perform the essential\nfunctions of their job classification due to an illness or injury.”\n\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 3\n\n On September 13, 2010, AOMS examined Richardson’s fit-\nness to return to work. It found Richardson “physically fit to\nwork as a bus operator,” but indicated Richardson “must be\ncleared by safety prior to operating [a] bus.” CTA requires\nAOMS to report if a bus operator returning from extended\nleave weighs over 400 pounds because CTA bus seats are not\ndesigned to accommodate drivers weighing over 400 pounds.\nWeighing over this maximum does not, however, automati-\ncally disqualify employees from working as bus operators.\nCTA permits such employees to operate buses if the safety de-\npartment finds they can safely perform their job. To make this\ndetermination, CTA administers a “special assessment,” a\ndriving performance test used to determine whether bus op-\nerators can perform all standard operating procedures on six\ntypes of CTA buses.\n On September 16, 2010, Richardson completed a special\nassessment. CTA’s Acting Manager of Bus Instruction, Marie\nStewart, assigned Bus Instructors John Durnell and Elon\nMcElroy to administer the test. During the assessment, Dur-\nnell and McElroy joked about Richardson’s weight. Durnell\ntestified he was just trying “to lighten up the situation,” and\nasserted that in response, Richardson “started laughing and\nhe started to relax.” Nevertheless, McElroy reported Durnell’s\ncomments to Stewart, and Stewart reprimanded Durnell for\nunprofessionalism.\n Following the assessment, Durnell and McElroy each com-\npleted a report. While Durnell concluded Richardson “can\ndrive all of CTA’s buses in a safe and trusted manner,” both\ninstructors noted several safety concerns: Richardson cross-\npedaled, meaning his foot was on the gas and brake at the\nsame time; Richardson was unable to make hand-over-hand\n\f4 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\n\nturns; Richardson’s leg rested close to the door handle; Rich-\nardson could not see the floor of the bus from his seat; part of\nRichardson’s body hung off the driver’s seat; and the seat de-\nflated when Richardson sat. Additionally, both instructors\nnoted Richardson wore a seatbelt extender, wrote that Rich-\nardson was “sweating heavily” and needed to lean onto the\nbus for balance, and Durnell commented on a “hygiene prob-\nlem.” At his deposition, McElroy testified that as a “former\nheart patient,” he was worried Richardson’s “sweating\n[could] lead to an episode.”\n Stewart drafted a memorandum to CTA’s Vice President\nof Bus Operations, Earl Swopes, concluding that “[b]ased on\nthe Bus Instructors[’] observations and findings, the limited\nspace in the driver’s area and the manufacturer requirements,\nit would be unsafe for Bus Operator Richardson to operate\nany CTA bus at this time.” She specifically referenced the\nsafety concerns listed above. Moreover, Stewart wrote that\n“[t]he maximum allowable weight per the manufacturer re-\nquirements for CTA buses is 400 pounds,” and “[i]t has been\nrepresented that Operator Richardson is over that weight\nmaximum.” Because Richardson failed the assessment and\ncould not adhere to all CTA operating procedures, Swopes\ndetermined that Richardson could not safely operate CTA\nbuses. Swopes testified he based this decision solely on Stew-\nart’s memorandum, without any independent investigation.\n Instead of immediately terminating Richardson’s employ-\nment, CTA proposed a written agreement: CTA would trans-\nfer Richardson back to Area 605 so he could work with doc-\ntors to lose weight and be subject to periodic monitoring; in\nexchange, Richardson would release his ability to bring vari-\nous causes of action. Richardson refused. In March 2011, CTA\n\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 5\n\nnonetheless transferred Richardson to Area 605; the accompa-\nnying form provides as a rationale that Richardson “exceeded\nthe weight requirement to operate the bus.” In October 2011,\nCTA informed Richardson that he was approaching two years\nof inactive status, and per CTA policy, he could extend his\ntime in Area 605 by one year by submitting medical documen-\ntation. Richardson did not submit documentation, and in Feb-\nruary 2012, CTA terminated his employment.\n On December 15, 2015, the Equal Employment Oppor-\ntunity Commission (“EEOC”) issued Richardson a right-to-\nsue letter, and on March 10, 2016, Richardson brought the op-\nerative complaint against CTA, alleging it violated the ADA\nby “refus[ing] to allow [him] to return to work because it re-\ngarded him as being too obese to work as a bus operator.” On\nOctober 17, 2016, the district court denied CTA’s motion to\ndismiss, ruling that “[e]ven if [Richardson] is ultimately re-\nquired to prove that his obesity was caused by a physiological\ndisorder, he is not required to allege the same.” On April 20,\n2017, Richardson and CTA filed cross-motions for summary\njudgment, and on November 13, 2017, the district court de-\nnied Richardson’s motion and granted CTA’s motion. It held,\nbased on the language of the ADA and the pertinent EEOC\nregulation and interpretive guidance, that “to qualify as a pro-\ntected physical impairment, claimants under the ADA must\nshow that their severe obesity is caused by an underlying\nphysiological disorder or condition.” Because Richardson\npresented no such evidence, the district court entered judg-\nment in CTA’s favor.\n On December 7, 2017, CTA filed its bill of costs, seeking to\nrecover $7,333.56 in deposition and copying costs as the pre-\nvailing party pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\n\f6 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\n\n54(d)(1). Richardson argued costs should not be taxed because\nof his inability to pay, or alternatively, CTA’s costs should be\nreduced because transcript delivery fees are not recoverable\nand the transcript costs CTA sought were over the rate al-\nlowed by local rules. On May 1, 2018, the district court issued\na minute order taxing $2,067.26 in costs. It denied copying\ncosts because the documents were available on the electronic\ndocket, and it reduced deposition transcript costs.\n Richardson separately appealed the district court’s grant\nof CTA’s motion for summary judgment and decision to tax\ncosts. We consolidated the appeals for resolution.\n II. Discussion\n A. The ADA and Obesity\n We review cross-motions for summary judgment de novo,\n“construing all facts and drawing all reasonable inferences in\nfavor of the party against whom the motion under considera-\ntion was filed.” Hess v. Bd. of Trs. of S. Ill. Univ., 839 F.3d 668,\n673 (7th Cir. 2016). Here, we consider only CTA’s motion for\nsummary judgment, so we draw all facts in favor of Richard-\nson. Summary judgment is proper “where there are no genu-\nine issues of material fact and the movant is entitled to judg-\nment as a matter of law.” Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)).\n The ADA prohibits employers from “discriminat[ing]\nagainst a qualified individual on the basis of disability.”\n42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). To succeed on an ADA claim, an em-\nployee must show: “(1) he is disabled; (2) he is otherwise qual-\nified to perform the essential functions of the job with or with-\nout reasonable accommodation; and (3) the adverse job action\nwas caused by his disability.” Roberts v. City of Chicago, 817\nF.3d 561, 565 (7th Cir. 2016).\n\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 7\n\n The ADA defines disability as: “(A) a physical or mental\nimpairment that substantially limits one or more major life ac-\ntivities of [an] individual; (B) a record of such an impairment;\nor (C) being regarded as having such an impairment.”\n42 U.S.C. § 12102(1). Richardson focuses his claim on the “re-\ngarded as” prong. To succeed, he must establish he was sub-\nject to a prohibited employment action “because of an actual\nor perceived physical or mental impairment whether or not\nthe impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life ac-\ntivity.” Id. § 12102(3)(A). At issue here, then, is whether Rich-\nardson can demonstrate either: (1) his extreme obesity is an\nactual impairment; or (2) CTA perceived his extreme obesity\nto be an impairment.\n 1. Actual Impairment\n Congress has not defined “impairment.” In a regulation\nimplementing the ADA, however, the EEOC defined “physi-\ncal impairment” as: “Any physiological disorder or condition,\ncosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or\nmore body systems, such as neurological, musculoskeletal,\nspecial sense organs, respiratory (including speech organs),\ncardiovascular, reproductive, digestive, genitourinary, im-\nmune, circulatory, hemic, lymphatic, skin, and endocrine.” 29\nC.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1). EEOC regulations interpreting the ADA\nare entitled to deference under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural\nResources Defense Council, Inc., unless they are “arbitrary, ca-\npricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.” 467 U.S. 837,\n844 (1984); see Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 130 F.3d 893, 899\nn.3 (10th Cir. 1997).\n Richardson and CTA disagree about whether his extreme\nobesity—even without evidence of an underlying physiolog-\nical condition—meets the definition of physical impairment\n\f8 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\n\nand is thus an actionable disability for ADA purposes. This is\nan issue of first impression for this Circuit. However, three of\nour sister circuits have considered the question; each has held,\nbased on the language of 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1), that obesity\nis an ADA impairment only if it is the result of an underlying\n“physiological disorder or condition.” See Morriss v. BNSF Ry.\nCo., 817 F.3d 1104, 1108–13 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 256\n(2016); EEOC v. Watkins Motor Lines, Inc., 463 F.3d 436, 441–43\n(6th Cir. 2006); Francis v. City of Meriden, 129 F.3d 281, 286–87\n(2d Cir. 1997).1 The majority of district courts have also ex-\npressed this view.2 In contrast, only a small number of district\ncourts have held extreme obesity is an ADA impairment even\nwithout evidence of a physiological cause. See, e.g., Velez v.\nCloghan Concepts, LLC, No. 18-cv-1901, 2019 WL 2423145, at *4\n(S.D. Cal. June 10, 2019); Velez v. II Fornanio (Am.) Corp., No.\n18-cv-1840, 2018 WL 6446169, at *2–4 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2018);\nMcCollum v. Livingston, No. 14-cv-3253, 2017 WL 608665, at\n\n 1 The Ninth Circuit has acknowledged that “the scope of ADA protec-\n\ntion for individuals suffering from obesity … presents an open question\nof federal law in this circuit,” but it has not had to resolve the issue. Taylor\nv. Burlington N. R.R. Holdings, Inc., 904 F.3d 846, 851–53 (9th Cir. 2018).\n 2 See, e.g., Sturgill v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., No. 18-cv-566, 2019 WL 1063374,\n\nat *3–4 (E.D. Va. Mar. 6, 2019); Shell v. Burlington N. Santa Fe Ry. Co., No.\n15-cv-11040, 2018 WL 1156249, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 5, 2018); Brownwood v.\nWells Trucking, LLC, No. 16-cv-01264, 2017 WL 9289453, at *6 (D. Colo.\nNov. 9, 2017); Silva v. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs for the Cty. of Roosevelt, No. 15-cv-\n1046, 2017 WL 4325769, at *7–8 (D.N.M. Sept. 26, 2017); Valtierra v. Med-\ntronic Inc., 232 F. Supp. 3d 1117, 1123–25 (D. Ariz. 2017); Revolinski v.\nAmtrak, No. 08-cv-1098, 2011 WL 2037015, at *11 (E.D. Wis. May 24, 2011);\nHayes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 781 F. Supp. 2d 1080, 1091 (D. Or. 2011); Ni\nv. Rite Aid of N.J., No. 10-cv-1522, 2010 WL 2557523, at *3 (D.N.J. June 22,\n2010); Hill v. Verizon Md., Inc., No. 07-cv-3123, 2009 WL 2060088, at *6 (D.\nMd. July 13, 2009).\n\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 9\n\n*35 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 3, 2017); EEOC v. Res. for Human Dev., Inc.,\n827 F. Supp. 2d 688, 693–95 (E.D. La. 2011); Lowe v. Am. Eu-\nrocopter, LLC, No. 10-cv-24, 2010 WL 5232523, at *7–8 (N.D.\nMiss. Dec. 16, 2010).3 We join the Second, Sixth, and Eighth\nCircuits. Without evidence that Richardson’s extreme obesity\nwas caused by a physiological disorder or condition, his obe-\nsity is not a physical impairment under the plain language of\nthe EEOC regulation.\n In his arguments to the contrary, Richardson focuses first\non the ADAAA. Congress passed these amendments in 2008\nto ensure that the ADA’s “definition of disability … be con-\nstrued in favor of broad coverage.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(4)(A).\nCongress emphasized “that the primary object of attention in\ncases brought under the ADA should be whether entities cov-\nered under the ADA have complied with their obligations,”\nwhile “the question of whether an individual’s impairment is\na disability under the ADA should not demand extensive\nanalysis.” ADAAA § 2(b)(5), 122 Stat. at 3554.\n Specifically, Congress sought to broaden the scope of the\n“being regarded as having such an impairment” definition of\ndisability. Id. § 2(b)(3); see Miller v. Ill. Dep’t of Transp., 643 F.3d\n190, 196 (7th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he ‘regarded as’ prong is an im-\nportant protection that should not be nullified by creating an\nimpossibly high standard of proof, as Congress indicated\neven more strongly in the 2008 amendments.”). It rejected the\nSupreme Court’s decision in Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc.,\n\n\n\n 3 The Montana Supreme Court reached a similar conclusion, discuss-\ning the ADA when interpreting the analogous Montana law. BNSF Ry. Co.\nv. Feit, 281 P.3d 225, 230–31 (Mont. 2012).\n\f10 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\n\n527 U.S. 471 (1999), which held that to be regarded as disa-\nbled, an employee’s disability must substantially limit a major\nlife activity. See id. at 490 (“An employer runs afoul of the\nADA when it makes an employment decision based on a\nphysical or mental impairment, real or imagined, that is re-\ngarded as substantially limiting a major life activity.”). There-\nfore, Congress amended the ADA to make clear an individual\ncan be “regarded as” having an impairment “whether or not\nthe impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life ac-\ntivity,” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(3)(A), and the EEOC adopted regu-\nlations to the same effect. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(2)\n(“Whether an individual’s impairment ‘substantially limits’ a\nmajor life activity is not relevant to coverage under … the ‘re-\ngarded as’ prong.”); id. § 1630.2(l)(1).\n Additionally, Congress relaxed court-imposed rules as to\nhow severe an impairment must be to be considered a disa-\nbility. It sought to abrogate the Supreme Court’s decisions in\nSutton and Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Wil-\nliams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002), because the Court’s definition of\n“substantially limits a major life activity” in those cases “cre-\nated an inappropriately high level of limitation necessary to\nobtain coverage under the ADA” by requiring that employees\nhave an impairment that “severely restrict[ed]” a major life\nactivity. ADAAA § 2(b)(2)–(5), 122 Stat. at 3554.4 It found that\n\n 4See Toyota, 534 U.S. at 197–98 (holding “substantially” and “major”\n“need to be interpreted strictly to create a demanding standard for quali-\nfying as disabled,” and therefore, to be disabled “an individual must have\nan impairment that prevents or severely restricts the individual from do-\ning activities that are of central importance to most people’s daily lives”);\nSutton, 527 U.S. at 482–83 (“A person whose physical or mental impair-\nment is corrected by medication or other measures does not have an im-\npairment that presently ‘substantially limits’ a major life activity.”).\n\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 11\n\nEEOC regulations “defining the term ‘substantially limits’ as\n‘significantly restricted’ [were] inconsistent with congres-\nsional intent[] by expressing too high a standard,” and ex-\npressed its “expectation” that the EEOC would revise its reg-\nulations. Id. § 2(a)(8), (b)(6). The EEOC adhered to this di-\nrective. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii) (“An impairment need\nnot prevent, or significantly or severely restrict, the individual\nfrom performing a major life activity in order to be considered\nsubstantially limiting.”); id. § 1630.2(i)(2) (“[T]he term ‘major’\nshall not be interpreted strictly to create a demanding stand-\nard for disability.”).\n Richardson contends that after the ADAAA, courts must\nbroadly construe impairment to encompass extreme obesity,\neven without evidence of an underlying physiological condi-\ntion. Cf. EEOC v. BNSF Ry. Co., 902 F.3d 916, 923 (9th Cir. 2018)\n(“impairment” should be interpreted “broadly” after the\nADAAA). We disagree. While Congress criticized the Su-\npreme Court’s understanding of “substantially limits a major\nlife activity” at length, it said nothing about judicial interpre-\ntation of impairment. See Morriss, 817 F.3d at 1111. Likewise,\nwhile Congress instructed the EEOC to alter its definitions of\n“substantially limits” and “major life activity,” it made no\nsuch instruction with respect to the EEOC’s definition of im-\npairment. See id. Indeed, the ADAAA’s legislative history ex-\nplicitly states that Congress “expect[ed] that the currently reg-\nulatory definition of [physical or mental impairment], as\npromulgated by agencies such as the [EEOC] … [would] not\nchange.” Statement of the Managers to Accompany S. 3406,\nThe Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of\n2008, 154 Cong. Rec. S8342-01, S8345 (Sept. 11, 2008). The\nEEOC therefore did not modify its regulation defining im-\n\f12 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\n\npairment, and even after the ADAAA, the definition of phys-\nical impairment remains inextricably tied to a “physiological\ndisorder or condition.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1); see Morriss,\n817 F.3d at 1111 (“The ADAAA’s general policy statement\ncannot trump this plain language.”).\n Next, Richardson insists that we must interpret the\nEEOC’s definition of physical impairment in light of EEOC\ninterpretive guidance. That guidance, which interprets both\nthe ADA and the EEOC regulation, states:\n It is important to distinguish between condi-\n tions that are impairments and physical, psy-\n chological, environmental, cultural, and eco-\n nomic characteristics that are not impairments.\n The definition of the term “impairment” does\n not include physical characteristics such as eye\n color, hair color, left-handedness, or height,\n weight, or muscle tone that are within “normal”\n range and are not the result of a physiological\n disorder.\n29 C.F.R. pt. 1630, app. § 1630.2(h). While EEOC interpretive\nguidance is “not entitled to full Chevron deference,” it does\n“reflect a body of experience and informed judgment to which\ncourts and litigants may properly resort for guidance” and is\ntherefore “entitled to a measure of respect under the less def-\nerential Skidmore [v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944)] stand-\nard.” Fed. Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389, 399 (2008)\n(citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see Gile v.\nUnited Airlines, Inc., 95 F.3d 492, 497 (7th Cir. 1996).\n According to Richardson, this EEOC guidance specifies\nthat “impairment does not include the physical characteristic\n\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 13\n\nof weight if both of the following elements are present: (1) the\nweight [is] within the normal range; and (2) the weight is not\nthe result of a physiological disorder.” The Montana Supreme\nCourt adopted this interpretation. BNSF Ry. Co. v. Feit, 281\nP.3d 225, 229 (Mont. 2012). So did at least three district courts.\nSee Velez, 2019 WL 2423145, at *4; Velez, 2018 WL 6446169, at\n*4; Res. for Human Dev., 827 F. Supp. 2d at 694. Removing the\nnegatives, Richardson posits that “[i]mpairment does include\nthe physical characteristic of weight if either of the following\nelements are true: (1) the weight is not within the normal\nrange; or (2) the weight is the result of a physiological disor-\nder.”\n Like the Eighth Circuit, we do not find this reading of the\ninterpretive guidance persuasive. Rather, “a more natural\nreading of the interpretive guidance is that an individual’s\nweight is generally a physical characteristic that qualifies as a\nphysical impairment only if it falls outside the normal range\nand it occurs as the result of a physiological disorder.” Morriss,\n817 F.3d at 1108. As the Eighth Circuit reasoned, “reading …\nthe EEOC interpretive guidance in its entirety supports this\nconclusion” because, for example, “the interpretive guidance\nalso provides that ‘[o]ther conditions, such as pregnancy, that\nare not the result of a physiological disorder are also not im-\npairments.’” Id. at 1108–09 (alteration in original) (quoting\n29 C.F.R. pt. 1630, app. § 1630.2(h)).\n Moreover, Richardson’s preferred interpretation is over-\nbroad. If we were to read the EEOC interpretive guidance in\nthe way he suggests, even an employee with normal weight\ncould claim a weight-based physical impairment if his weight\nwas the result of a physiological disorder. Likewise, any em-\nployee whose weight—or other physical characteristic—is\n\f14 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\n\neven slightly outside the “normal range” would have a phys-\nical impairment even with no underlying physiological cause.\nSuch results are inconsistent with the ADA’s text and purpose\nand must be rejected. Otherwise, “the ‘regarded as’ prong …\nwould become a catch-all cause of action for discrimination\nbased on appearance, size, and any number of other things far\nremoved from the reasons the [ADA] [was] passed.” Watkins,\n463 F.3d at 443 (quoting Francis, 129 F.3d at 287).\n In any event, even if this interpretive guidance means\nwhat Richardson says it means, we do not defer to EEOC\nguidance that is contrary to the text of the regulation it pur-\nports to interpret. See Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.,\n567 U.S. 142, 155 (2012) (“Deference is undoubtedly inappro-\npriate … when the agency’s interpretation is ‘plainly errone-\nous or inconsistent with the regulation.’” (quoting Auer v. Rob-\nbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461 (1997))). The EEOC defines physical im-\npairment as a “physiological disorder or condition.” 29 C.F.R.\n§ 1630.2(h)(1). It is directly contrary to that definition to con-\nsider a physical characteristic such as weight, even if outside\nthe “normal range,” a physical impairment absent evidence\nof an underlying physiological condition.5\n\n\n 5 Richardson also emphasizes the EEOC has consistently expressed its\n\nview that extreme obesity is a physical impairment. In a compliance man-\nual, the EEOC stated that while “[b]eing overweight, in and of itself, gen-\nerally is not an impairment …, severe obesity, which has been defined as\nbody weight more than 100% over the norm, is clearly an impairment.”\nEEOC Compliance Manual § 902.2(c)(5)(ii) (2012) (citations and footnotes\nomitted). The EEOC has also taken this position in litigation, both as plain-\ntiff and amicus. True, courts may generally defer to both EEOC policy\nstatements in a compliance manual and EEOC’s interpretation of its own\nregulation in legal briefs. Christopher, 567 U.S. at 155; Holowecki, 552 U.S. at\n399; see Bible v. United Student Aid Funds, Inc., 799 F.3d 633, 663 (7th Cir.\n\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 15\n\n Patient and scientific professional organizations, as amici\ncuriae, make a somewhat related, but distinct argument. They\ninsist that because both the medical community6 and federal\nand state policymakers7 understand obesity as a disease, obe-\nsity is in and of itself a physiological disorder and therefore a\n\n\n\n2015) (Flaum, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment) (“[I]t\nis generally appropriate to defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own\nregulations, even when that interpretation is informally announced.”).\nHere, however, neither the compliance manual nor EEOC’s litigation po-\nsition are entitled to our deference. For one, the EEOC removed this para-\ngraph from its compliance manual in 2012. See EEOC, Section 902 Defini-\ntion of the Term Disability (2012), https://www.eeoc.gov/pol-\nicy/docs/902cm.html. And more importantly, the EEOC’s position is in di-\nrect conflict with the regulation because it considers extreme obesity a\nphysical impairment even without evidence of an underlying physiologi-\ncal disorder or condition. See Morriss, 817 F.3d at 1111 n.4, 1112.\n 6 For example, the American Medical Association describes “obesity\nas a disease state with multiple pathophysiological aspects requiring a\nrange of interventions to advance obesity treatment and prevention.” Am.\nMed. Assoc. House of Delegates, Recognition of Obesity as a Disease (2013),\nhttps://www.npr.org/documents/2013/jun/ama-resolution-obesity.pdf.\nLikewise, the World Health Organization concluded “obesity should be\nconsidered a disease in its own right.” World Health Org., Obesity and\nOverweight (2003), http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/me-\ndia/en/gsfs_obesity.pdf. And the National Institutes of Health said “[o]be-\nsity is a complex, multifactorial chronic disease.” Nat’l Insts. of Health,\nClinical Guidelines on the Identification, Evaluation, and Treatment of Over-\nweight and Obesity in Adults, at xi (1998),\nhttps://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/files/docs/guidelines/ob_gdlns.pdf.\n 7 For instance, the Internal Revenue Service decided an individual\ncould deduct costs of a weight-loss program as a medical care expense\nbecause he had “a disease, obesity,” I.R.S. Rev. Rul. 2002-19, 2002 WL\n484628 (Apr. 2, 2002), and the Social Security Administration recognized\nobesity as “a complex, chronic disease characterized by excessive accumu-\n\f16 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\n\nphysical impairment within the definition of the ADA. This\nargument is not persuasive. The ADA is an antidiscrimina-\ntion—not a public health—statute, and Congress’s desires as\nit relates to the ADA do not necessarily align with those of the\nmedical community. Moreover, amici’s argument proves too\nmuch; if we agreed that obesity is itself a physiological disor-\nder, then all obesity would be an ADA impairment. While\nRichardson does not ask us to hold that all obese individu-\nals—found to be as high as 39.8% of the American adult pop-\nulation8—automatically have an ADA impairment, adopting\namici’s position leads to this unavoidable, nonrealistic result.\n At bottom, Richardson does not present any evidence sug-\ngesting an underlying physiological disorder or condition\ncaused his extreme obesity.9 Without such evidence, we can-\nnot call Richardson’s extreme obesity a physical impairment\n\n\n\nlation of body fat.” SSR 00-3p, 2000 WL 33952015 (May 15, 2000). Addi-\ntionally, in 2017, the Senate passed by unanimous consent a resolution in\nsupport of “National Obesity Care Week,” recognizing “the disease of\nobesity,” S. Res. 325, 115th Cong. (2017), and in 2018, the National Lieu-\ntenant Governors Association passed a resolution which called obesity “a\nchronic disease.” Nat’l Lieutenant Governors Ass’n, Resolution in Support\nof the Treatment and Prevention of Obesity (June 29, 2018),\nhttps://www.nlga.us/wp-content/uploads/2018-Resolution-in-Support-\nof-the-Prevention-and-Treatment-of-Obesity-2.pdf.\n 8 See U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., Prevalence of Obesity Among\n\nAdults and Youth: United States, 2015–2016 (Oct. 2017),\nhttps://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db288.pdf.\n 9True, Richardson’s pulmonologist submitted a declaration stating\nRichardson’s hypertension and sleep apnea were “related to” his obesity.\nHowever, there is nothing in the record suggesting Richardson’s hyper-\ntension or sleep apnea caused his obesity.\n\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 17\n\nwithin the meaning of the ADA and the EEOC regulation. See\nMorriss, 817 F.3d at 1112; Watkins, 463 F.3d at 443.10\n 2. Perceived Impairment\n Alternatively, Richardson argues that even if we hold ex-\ntreme obesity is not itself an impairment, he is still disabled\nunder the ADA because CTA perceived his obesity to be a\nphysical impairment. See 42 U.S.C. § 12102(3)(A). To succeed\non this claim, Richardson must show CTA took adverse action\nagainst him based on the belief that his condition was an im-\npairment—as the ADA defines that term—not merely based\non knowledge of Richardson’s physical characteristic. See\nMorriss, 817 F.3d at 1113 (“[A]s a threshold matter, [the em-\nployee] was required to show that [the employer] perceived\nhis obesity to be a condition that met the definition of ‘physi-\ncal impairment.’”); Francis, 129 F.3d at 285 (“[T]he plaintiff\nmust allege that the employer believed, however erroneously,\n\n\n 10 Richardson also suggests the fact that he “suffered from extreme\nobesity … alone is sufficient … to establish that he meets the definition of\n‘disability’ under the ADA.” Cf. Watkins, 463 F.3d at 443–45 & n.1 (Gib-\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Mark Richardson v. CTA\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-06-12\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: Yes\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\nMARK RICHARDSON,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nCHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY,\\n Defendant-Appellee.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeals from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 16-cv-03027— John Robert Blakey, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED MAY 14, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 12, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before FLAUM, KANNE, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\\n FLAUM, Circuit Judge. Mark Richardson, a former Chicago\\nTransit Authority (“CTA”) bus operator, alleged CTA took ad-\\nverse action against him because of his extreme obesity in vi-\\nolation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990\\n(“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101–12213, as amended by the ADA\\nAmendments Act of 2008 (“ADAAA”), Pub. L. No. 110-325,\\n122 Stat. 3553. The district court disagreed. It held extreme\\nobesity only qualifies as a disability under the ADA if it is\\n\\f2 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\n\\ncaused by an underlying physiological disorder or condition,\\nand granted CTA’s motion for summary judgment because\\nRichardson offered no such evidence. Richardson appeals this\\nholding, as well as the district court’s decision to tax costs\\nagainst him. We affirm.\\n I. Background\\n Mark Richardson began working for CTA in 1993 as a tem-\\nporary bus operator, and he worked as a full-time operator\\nfrom August 1999 until February 2012. According to a CTA\\ndoctor, Richardson weighed 350 pounds in January 2005. And\\nanother CTA doctor indicated Richardson weighed 566\\npounds in May 2009. Based on his Body Mass Index (a stand-\\nardized weight-to-height ratio used to determine whether an\\nindividual is underweight, within the normal weight range,\\noverweight, or obese) Richardson has “extreme” obesity\\nwhenever he weighs over 315 pounds. He also suffers from\\nhypertension and sleep apnea.\\n Beginning in early February 2010, Richardson was absent\\nfrom work because he had the flu. He attempted to return to\\nwork on February 19, but Advanced Occupational Medicine\\nServices (“AOMS”)—CTA’s third-party medical provider—\\ndocumented that Richardson had uncontrolled hypertension\\nand influenza, weighed over 400 pounds, and could not re-\\nturn to work until he controlled his blood pressure. For that\\nreason, on April 9, CTA’s Disability Review Committee trans-\\nferred Richardson to Temporary Medical Disability–Area 605\\n(“Area 605”). CTA administrative procedures define Area 605\\nas a “budgetary assignment for eligible union employees who\\nhave been found medically unfit to perform the essential\\nfunctions of their job classification due to an illness or injury.”\\n\\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 3\\n\\n On September 13, 2010, AOMS examined Richardson’s fit-\\nness to return to work. It found Richardson “physically fit to\\nwork as a bus operator,” but indicated Richardson “must be\\ncleared by safety prior to operating [a] bus.” CTA requires\\nAOMS to report if a bus operator returning from extended\\nleave weighs over 400 pounds because CTA bus seats are not\\ndesigned to accommodate drivers weighing over 400 pounds.\\nWeighing over this maximum does not, however, automati-\\ncally disqualify employees from working as bus operators.\\nCTA permits such employees to operate buses if the safety de-\\npartment finds they can safely perform their job. To make this\\ndetermination, CTA administers a “special assessment,” a\\ndriving performance test used to determine whether bus op-\\nerators can perform all standard operating procedures on six\\ntypes of CTA buses.\\n On September 16, 2010, Richardson completed a special\\nassessment. CTA’s Acting Manager of Bus Instruction, Marie\\nStewart, assigned Bus Instructors John Durnell and Elon\\nMcElroy to administer the test. During the assessment, Dur-\\nnell and McElroy joked about Richardson’s weight. Durnell\\ntestified he was just trying “to lighten up the situation,” and\\nasserted that in response, Richardson “started laughing and\\nhe started to relax.” Nevertheless, McElroy reported Durnell’s\\ncomments to Stewart, and Stewart reprimanded Durnell for\\nunprofessionalism.\\n Following the assessment, Durnell and McElroy each com-\\npleted a report. While Durnell concluded Richardson “can\\ndrive all of CTA’s buses in a safe and trusted manner,” both\\ninstructors noted several safety concerns: Richardson cross-\\npedaled, meaning his foot was on the gas and brake at the\\nsame time; Richardson was unable to make hand-over-hand\\n\\f4 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\n\\nturns; Richardson’s leg rested close to the door handle; Rich-\\nardson could not see the floor of the bus from his seat; part of\\nRichardson’s body hung off the driver’s seat; and the seat de-\\nflated when Richardson sat. Additionally, both instructors\\nnoted Richardson wore a seatbelt extender, wrote that Rich-\\nardson was “sweating heavily” and needed to lean onto the\\nbus for balance, and Durnell commented on a “hygiene prob-\\nlem.” At his deposition, McElroy testified that as a “former\\nheart patient,” he was worried Richardson’s “sweating\\n[could] lead to an episode.”\\n Stewart drafted a memorandum to CTA’s Vice President\\nof Bus Operations, Earl Swopes, concluding that “[b]ased on\\nthe Bus Instructors[’] observations and findings, the limited\\nspace in the driver’s area and the manufacturer requirements,\\nit would be unsafe for Bus Operator Richardson to operate\\nany CTA bus at this time.” She specifically referenced the\\nsafety concerns listed above. Moreover, Stewart wrote that\\n“[t]he maximum allowable weight per the manufacturer re-\\nquirements for CTA buses is 400 pounds,” and “[i]t has been\\nrepresented that Operator Richardson is over that weight\\nmaximum.” Because Richardson failed the assessment and\\ncould not adhere to all CTA operating procedures, Swopes\\ndetermined that Richardson could not safely operate CTA\\nbuses. Swopes testified he based this decision solely on Stew-\\nart’s memorandum, without any independent investigation.\\n Instead of immediately terminating Richardson’s employ-\\nment, CTA proposed a written agreement: CTA would trans-\\nfer Richardson back to Area 605 so he could work with doc-\\ntors to lose weight and be subject to periodic monitoring; in\\nexchange, Richardson would release his ability to bring vari-\\nous causes of action. Richardson refused. In March 2011, CTA\\n\\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 5\\n\\nnonetheless transferred Richardson to Area 605; the accompa-\\nnying form provides as a rationale that Richardson “exceeded\\nthe weight requirement to operate the bus.” In October 2011,\\nCTA informed Richardson that he was approaching two years\\nof inactive status, and per CTA policy, he could extend his\\ntime in Area 605 by one year by submitting medical documen-\\ntation. Richardson did not submit documentation, and in Feb-\\nruary 2012, CTA terminated his employment.\\n On December 15, 2015, the Equal Employment Oppor-\\ntunity Commission (“EEOC”) issued Richardson a right-to-\\nsue letter, and on March 10, 2016, Richardson brought the op-\\nerative complaint against CTA, alleging it violated the ADA\\nby “refus[ing] to allow [him] to return to work because it re-\\ngarded him as being too obese to work as a bus operator.” On\\nOctober 17, 2016, the district court denied CTA’s motion to\\ndismiss, ruling that “[e]ven if [Richardson] is ultimately re-\\nquired to prove that his obesity was caused by a physiological\\ndisorder, he is not required to allege the same.” On April 20,\\n2017, Richardson and CTA filed cross-motions for summary\\njudgment, and on November 13, 2017, the district court de-\\nnied Richardson’s motion and granted CTA’s motion. It held,\\nbased on the language of the ADA and the pertinent EEOC\\nregulation and interpretive guidance, that “to qualify as a pro-\\ntected physical impairment, claimants under the ADA must\\nshow that their severe obesity is caused by an underlying\\nphysiological disorder or condition.” Because Richardson\\npresented no such evidence, the district court entered judg-\\nment in CTA’s favor.\\n On December 7, 2017, CTA filed its bill of costs, seeking to\\nrecover $7,333.56 in deposition and copying costs as the pre-\\nvailing party pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\\n\\f6 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\n\\n54(d)(1). Richardson argued costs should not be taxed because\\nof his inability to pay, or alternatively, CTA’s costs should be\\nreduced because transcript delivery fees are not recoverable\\nand the transcript costs CTA sought were over the rate al-\\nlowed by local rules. On May 1, 2018, the district court issued\\na minute order taxing $2,067.26 in costs. It denied copying\\ncosts because the documents were available on the electronic\\ndocket, and it reduced deposition transcript costs.\\n Richardson separately appealed the district court’s grant\\nof CTA’s motion for summary judgment and decision to tax\\ncosts. We consolidated the appeals for resolution.\\n II. Discussion\\n A. The ADA and Obesity\\n We review cross-motions for summary judgment de novo,\\n“construing all facts and drawing all reasonable inferences in\\nfavor of the party against whom the motion under considera-\\ntion was filed.” Hess v. Bd. of Trs. of S. Ill. Univ., 839 F.3d 668,\\n673 (7th Cir. 2016). Here, we consider only CTA’s motion for\\nsummary judgment, so we draw all facts in favor of Richard-\\nson. Summary judgment is proper “where there are no genu-\\nine issues of material fact and the movant is entitled to judg-\\nment as a matter of law.” Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)).\\n The ADA prohibits employers from “discriminat[ing]\\nagainst a qualified individual on the basis of disability.”\\n42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). To succeed on an ADA claim, an em-\\nployee must show: “(1) he is disabled; (2) he is otherwise qual-\\nified to perform the essential functions of the job with or with-\\nout reasonable accommodation; and (3) the adverse job action\\nwas caused by his disability.” Roberts v. City of Chicago, 817\\nF.3d 561, 565 (7th Cir. 2016).\\n\\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 7\\n\\n The ADA defines disability as: “(A) a physical or mental\\nimpairment that substantially limits one or more major life ac-\\ntivities of [an] individual; (B) a record of such an impairment;\\nor (C) being regarded as having such an impairment.”\\n42 U.S.C. § 12102(1). Richardson focuses his claim on the “re-\\ngarded as” prong. To succeed, he must establish he was sub-\\nject to a prohibited employment action “because of an actual\\nor perceived physical or mental impairment whether or not\\nthe impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life ac-\\ntivity.” Id. § 12102(3)(A). At issue here, then, is whether Rich-\\nardson can demonstrate either: (1) his extreme obesity is an\\nactual impairment; or (2) CTA perceived his extreme obesity\\nto be an impairment.\\n 1. Actual Impairment\\n Congress has not defined “impairment.” In a regulation\\nimplementing the ADA, however, the EEOC defined “physi-\\ncal impairment” as: “Any physiological disorder or condition,\\ncosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or\\nmore body systems, such as neurological, musculoskeletal,\\nspecial sense organs, respiratory (including speech organs),\\ncardiovascular, reproductive, digestive, genitourinary, im-\\nmune, circulatory, hemic, lymphatic, skin, and endocrine.” 29\\nC.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1). EEOC regulations interpreting the ADA\\nare entitled to deference under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural\\nResources Defense Council, Inc., unless they are “arbitrary, ca-\\npricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.” 467 U.S. 837,\\n844 (1984); see Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 130 F.3d 893, 899\\nn.3 (10th Cir. 1997).\\n Richardson and CTA disagree about whether his extreme\\nobesity—even without evidence of an underlying physiolog-\\nical condition—meets the definition of physical impairment\\n\\f8 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\n\\nand is thus an actionable disability for ADA purposes. This is\\nan issue of first impression for this Circuit. However, three of\\nour sister circuits have considered the question; each has held,\\nbased on the language of 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1), that obesity\\nis an ADA impairment only if it is the result of an underlying\\n“physiological disorder or condition.” See Morriss v. BNSF Ry.\\nCo., 817 F.3d 1104, 1108–13 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 256\\n(2016); EEOC v. Watkins Motor Lines, Inc., 463 F.3d 436, 441–43\\n(6th Cir. 2006); Francis v. City of Meriden, 129 F.3d 281, 286–87\\n(2d Cir. 1997).1 The majority of district courts have also ex-\\npressed this view.2 In contrast, only a small number of district\\ncourts have held extreme obesity is an ADA impairment even\\nwithout evidence of a physiological cause. See, e.g., Velez v.\\nCloghan Concepts, LLC, No. 18-cv-1901, 2019 WL 2423145, at *4\\n(S.D. Cal. June 10, 2019); Velez v. II Fornanio (Am.) Corp., No.\\n18-cv-1840, 2018 WL 6446169, at *2–4 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2018);\\nMcCollum v. Livingston, No. 14-cv-3253, 2017 WL 608665, at\\n\\n 1 The Ninth Circuit has acknowledged that “the scope of ADA protec-\\n\\ntion for individuals suffering from obesity … presents an open question\\nof federal law in this circuit,” but it has not had to resolve the issue. Taylor\\nv. Burlington N. R.R. Holdings, Inc., 904 F.3d 846, 851–53 (9th Cir. 2018).\\n 2 See, e.g., Sturgill v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., No. 18-cv-566, 2019 WL 1063374,\\n\\nat *3–4 (E.D. Va. Mar. 6, 2019); Shell v. Burlington N. Santa Fe Ry. Co., No.\\n15-cv-11040, 2018 WL 1156249, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 5, 2018); Brownwood v.\\nWells Trucking, LLC, No. 16-cv-01264, 2017 WL 9289453, at *6 (D. Colo.\\nNov. 9, 2017); Silva v. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs for the Cty. of Roosevelt, No. 15-cv-\\n1046, 2017 WL 4325769, at *7–8 (D.N.M. Sept. 26, 2017); Valtierra v. Med-\\ntronic Inc., 232 F. Supp. 3d 1117, 1123–25 (D. Ariz. 2017); Revolinski v.\\nAmtrak, No. 08-cv-1098, 2011 WL 2037015, at *11 (E.D. Wis. May 24, 2011);\\nHayes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 781 F. Supp. 2d 1080, 1091 (D. Or. 2011); Ni\\nv. Rite Aid of N.J., No. 10-cv-1522, 2010 WL 2557523, at *3 (D.N.J. June 22,\\n2010); Hill v. Verizon Md., Inc., No. 07-cv-3123, 2009 WL 2060088, at *6 (D.\\nMd. July 13, 2009).\\n\\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 9\\n\\n*35 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 3, 2017); EEOC v. Res. for Human Dev., Inc.,\\n827 F. Supp. 2d 688, 693–95 (E.D. La. 2011); Lowe v. Am. Eu-\\nrocopter, LLC, No. 10-cv-24, 2010 WL 5232523, at *7–8 (N.D.\\nMiss. Dec. 16, 2010).3 We join the Second, Sixth, and Eighth\\nCircuits. Without evidence that Richardson’s extreme obesity\\nwas caused by a physiological disorder or condition, his obe-\\nsity is not a physical impairment under the plain language of\\nthe EEOC regulation.\\n In his arguments to the contrary, Richardson focuses first\\non the ADAAA. Congress passed these amendments in 2008\\nto ensure that the ADA’s “definition of disability … be con-\\nstrued in favor of broad coverage.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(4)(A).\\nCongress emphasized “that the primary object of attention in\\ncases brought under the ADA should be whether entities cov-\\nered under the ADA have complied with their obligations,”\\nwhile “the question of whether an individual’s impairment is\\na disability under the ADA should not demand extensive\\nanalysis.” ADAAA § 2(b)(5), 122 Stat. at 3554.\\n Specifically, Congress sought to broaden the scope of the\\n“being regarded as having such an impairment” definition of\\ndisability. Id. § 2(b)(3); see Miller v. Ill. Dep’t of Transp., 643 F.3d\\n190, 196 (7th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he ‘regarded as’ prong is an im-\\nportant protection that should not be nullified by creating an\\nimpossibly high standard of proof, as Congress indicated\\neven more strongly in the 2008 amendments.”). It rejected the\\nSupreme Court’s decision in Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc.,\\n\\n\\n\\n 3 The Montana Supreme Court reached a similar conclusion, discuss-\\ning the ADA when interpreting the analogous Montana law. BNSF Ry. Co.\\nv. Feit, 281 P.3d 225, 230–31 (Mont. 2012).\\n\\f10 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\n\\n527 U.S. 471 (1999), which held that to be regarded as disa-\\nbled, an employee’s disability must substantially limit a major\\nlife activity. See id. at 490 (“An employer runs afoul of the\\nADA when it makes an employment decision based on a\\nphysical or mental impairment, real or imagined, that is re-\\ngarded as substantially limiting a major life activity.”). There-\\nfore, Congress amended the ADA to make clear an individual\\ncan be “regarded as” having an impairment “whether or not\\nthe impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life ac-\\ntivity,” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(3)(A), and the EEOC adopted regu-\\nlations to the same effect. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(2)\\n(“Whether an individual’s impairment ‘substantially limits’ a\\nmajor life activity is not relevant to coverage under … the ‘re-\\ngarded as’ prong.”); id. § 1630.2(l)(1).\\n Additionally, Congress relaxed court-imposed rules as to\\nhow severe an impairment must be to be considered a disa-\\nbility. It sought to abrogate the Supreme Court’s decisions in\\nSutton and Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Wil-\\nliams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002), because the Court’s definition of\\n“substantially limits a major life activity” in those cases “cre-\\nated an inappropriately high level of limitation necessary to\\nobtain coverage under the ADA” by requiring that employees\\nhave an impairment that “severely restrict[ed]” a major life\\nactivity. ADAAA § 2(b)(2)–(5), 122 Stat. at 3554.4 It found that\\n\\n 4See Toyota, 534 U.S. at 197–98 (holding “substantially” and “major”\\n“need to be interpreted strictly to create a demanding standard for quali-\\nfying as disabled,” and therefore, to be disabled “an individual must have\\nan impairment that prevents or severely restricts the individual from do-\\ning activities that are of central importance to most people’s daily lives”);\\nSutton, 527 U.S. at 482–83 (“A person whose physical or mental impair-\\nment is corrected by medication or other measures does not have an im-\\npairment that presently ‘substantially limits’ a major life activity.”).\\n\\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 11\\n\\nEEOC regulations “defining the term ‘substantially limits’ as\\n‘significantly restricted’ [were] inconsistent with congres-\\nsional intent[] by expressing too high a standard,” and ex-\\npressed its “expectation” that the EEOC would revise its reg-\\nulations. Id. § 2(a)(8), (b)(6). The EEOC adhered to this di-\\nrective. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii) (“An impairment need\\nnot prevent, or significantly or severely restrict, the individual\\nfrom performing a major life activity in order to be considered\\nsubstantially limiting.”); id. § 1630.2(i)(2) (“[T]he term ‘major’\\nshall not be interpreted strictly to create a demanding stand-\\nard for disability.”).\\n Richardson contends that after the ADAAA, courts must\\nbroadly construe impairment to encompass extreme obesity,\\neven without evidence of an underlying physiological condi-\\ntion. Cf. EEOC v. BNSF Ry. Co., 902 F.3d 916, 923 (9th Cir. 2018)\\n(“impairment” should be interpreted “broadly” after the\\nADAAA). We disagree. While Congress criticized the Su-\\npreme Court’s understanding of “substantially limits a major\\nlife activity” at length, it said nothing about judicial interpre-\\ntation of impairment. See Morriss, 817 F.3d at 1111. Likewise,\\nwhile Congress instructed the EEOC to alter its definitions of\\n“substantially limits” and “major life activity,” it made no\\nsuch instruction with respect to the EEOC’s definition of im-\\npairment. See id. Indeed, the ADAAA’s legislative history ex-\\nplicitly states that Congress “expect[ed] that the currently reg-\\nulatory definition of [physical or mental impairment], as\\npromulgated by agencies such as the [EEOC] … [would] not\\nchange.” Statement of the Managers to Accompany S. 3406,\\nThe Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of\\n2008, 154 Cong. Rec. S8342-01, S8345 (Sept. 11, 2008). The\\nEEOC therefore did not modify its regulation defining im-\\n\\f12 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\n\\npairment, and even after the ADAAA, the definition of phys-\\nical impairment remains inextricably tied to a “physiological\\ndisorder or condition.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1); see Morriss,\\n817 F.3d at 1111 (“The ADAAA’s general policy statement\\ncannot trump this plain language.”).\\n Next, Richardson insists that we must interpret the\\nEEOC’s definition of physical impairment in light of EEOC\\ninterpretive guidance. That guidance, which interprets both\\nthe ADA and the EEOC regulation, states:\\n It is important to distinguish between condi-\\n tions that are impairments and physical, psy-\\n chological, environmental, cultural, and eco-\\n nomic characteristics that are not impairments.\\n The definition of the term “impairment” does\\n not include physical characteristics such as eye\\n color, hair color, left-handedness, or height,\\n weight, or muscle tone that are within “normal”\\n range and are not the result of a physiological\\n disorder.\\n29 C.F.R. pt. 1630, app. § 1630.2(h). While EEOC interpretive\\nguidance is “not entitled to full Chevron deference,” it does\\n“reflect a body of experience and informed judgment to which\\ncourts and litigants may properly resort for guidance” and is\\ntherefore “entitled to a measure of respect under the less def-\\nerential Skidmore [v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944)] stand-\\nard.” Fed. Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389, 399 (2008)\\n(citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see Gile v.\\nUnited Airlines, Inc., 95 F.3d 492, 497 (7th Cir. 1996).\\n According to Richardson, this EEOC guidance specifies\\nthat “impairment does not include the physical characteristic\\n\\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 13\\n\\nof weight if both of the following elements are present: (1) the\\nweight [is] within the normal range; and (2) the weight is not\\nthe result of a physiological disorder.” The Montana Supreme\\nCourt adopted this interpretation. BNSF Ry. Co. v. Feit, 281\\nP.3d 225, 229 (Mont. 2012). So did at least three district courts.\\nSee Velez, 2019 WL 2423145, at *4; Velez, 2018 WL 6446169, at\\n*4; Res. for Human Dev., 827 F. Supp. 2d at 694. Removing the\\nnegatives, Richardson posits that “[i]mpairment does include\\nthe physical characteristic of weight if either of the following\\nelements are true: (1) the weight is not within the normal\\nrange; or (2) the weight is the result of a physiological disor-\\nder.”\\n Like the Eighth Circuit, we do not find this reading of the\\ninterpretive guidance persuasive. Rather, “a more natural\\nreading of the interpretive guidance is that an individual’s\\nweight is generally a physical characteristic that qualifies as a\\nphysical impairment only if it falls outside the normal range\\nand it occurs as the result of a physiological disorder.” Morriss,\\n817 F.3d at 1108. As the Eighth Circuit reasoned, “reading …\\nthe EEOC interpretive guidance in its entirety supports this\\nconclusion” because, for example, “the interpretive guidance\\nalso provides that ‘[o]ther conditions, such as pregnancy, that\\nare not the result of a physiological disorder are also not im-\\npairments.’” Id. at 1108–09 (alteration in original) (quoting\\n29 C.F.R. pt. 1630, app. § 1630.2(h)).\\n Moreover, Richardson’s preferred interpretation is over-\\nbroad. If we were to read the EEOC interpretive guidance in\\nthe way he suggests, even an employee with normal weight\\ncould claim a weight-based physical impairment if his weight\\nwas the result of a physiological disorder. Likewise, any em-\\nployee whose weight—or other physical characteristic—is\\n\\f14 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\n\\neven slightly outside the “normal range” would have a phys-\\nical impairment even with no underlying physiological cause.\\nSuch results are inconsistent with the ADA’s text and purpose\\nand must be rejected. Otherwise, “the ‘regarded as’ prong …\\nwould become a catch-all cause of action for discrimination\\nbased on appearance, size, and any number of other things far\\nremoved from the reasons the [ADA] [was] passed.” Watkins,\\n463 F.3d at 443 (quoting Francis, 129 F.3d at 287).\\n In any event, even if this interpretive guidance means\\nwhat Richardson says it means, we do not defer to EEOC\\nguidance that is contrary to the text of the regulation it pur-\\nports to interpret. See Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.,\\n567 U.S. 142, 155 (2012) (“Deference is undoubtedly inappro-\\npriate … when the agency’s interpretation is ‘plainly errone-\\nous or inconsistent with the regulation.’” (quoting Auer v. Rob-\\nbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461 (1997))). The EEOC defines physical im-\\npairment as a “physiological disorder or condition.” 29 C.F.R.\\n§ 1630.2(h)(1). It is directly contrary to that definition to con-\\nsider a physical characteristic such as weight, even if outside\\nthe “normal range,” a physical impairment absent evidence\\nof an underlying physiological condition.5\\n\\n\\n 5 Richardson also emphasizes the EEOC has consistently expressed its\\n\\nview that extreme obesity is a physical impairment. In a compliance man-\\nual, the EEOC stated that while “[b]eing overweight, in and of itself, gen-\\nerally is not an impairment …, severe obesity, which has been defined as\\nbody weight more than 100% over the norm, is clearly an impairment.”\\nEEOC Compliance Manual § 902.2(c)(5)(ii) (2012) (citations and footnotes\\nomitted). The EEOC has also taken this position in litigation, both as plain-\\ntiff and amicus. True, courts may generally defer to both EEOC policy\\nstatements in a compliance manual and EEOC’s interpretation of its own\\nregulation in legal briefs. Christopher, 567 U.S. at 155; Holowecki, 552 U.S. at\\n399; see Bible v. United Student Aid Funds, Inc., 799 F.3d 633, 663 (7th Cir.\\n\\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 15\\n\\n Patient and scientific professional organizations, as amici\\ncuriae, make a somewhat related, but distinct argument. They\\ninsist that because both the medical community6 and federal\\nand state policymakers7 understand obesity as a disease, obe-\\nsity is in and of itself a physiological disorder and therefore a\\n\\n\\n\\n2015) (Flaum, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment) (“[I]t\\nis generally appropriate to defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own\\nregulations, even when that interpretation is informally announced.”).\\nHere, however, neither the compliance manual nor EEOC’s litigation po-\\nsition are entitled to our deference. For one, the EEOC removed this para-\\ngraph from its compliance manual in 2012. See EEOC, Section 902 Defini-\\ntion of the Term Disability (2012), https://www.eeoc.gov/pol-\\nicy/docs/902cm.html. And more importantly, the EEOC’s position is in di-\\nrect conflict with the regulation because it considers extreme obesity a\\nphysical impairment even without evidence of an underlying physiologi-\\ncal disorder or condition. See Morriss, 817 F.3d at 1111 n.4, 1112.\\n 6 For example, the American Medical Association describes “obesity\\nas a disease state with multiple pathophysiological aspects requiring a\\nrange of interventions to advance obesity treatment and prevention.” Am.\\nMed. Assoc. House of Delegates, Recognition of Obesity as a Disease (2013),\\nhttps://www.npr.org/documents/2013/jun/ama-resolution-obesity.pdf.\\nLikewise, the World Health Organization concluded “obesity should be\\nconsidered a disease in its own right.” World Health Org., Obesity and\\nOverweight (2003), http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/me-\\ndia/en/gsfs_obesity.pdf. And the National Institutes of Health said “[o]be-\\nsity is a complex, multifactorial chronic disease.” Nat’l Insts. of Health,\\nClinical Guidelines on the Identification, Evaluation, and Treatment of Over-\\nweight and Obesity in Adults, at xi (1998),\\nhttps://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/files/docs/guidelines/ob_gdlns.pdf.\\n 7 For instance, the Internal Revenue Service decided an individual\\ncould deduct costs of a weight-loss program as a medical care expense\\nbecause he had “a disease, obesity,” I.R.S. Rev. Rul. 2002-19, 2002 WL\\n484628 (Apr. 2, 2002), and the Social Security Administration recognized\\nobesity as “a complex, chronic disease characterized by excessive accumu-\\n\\f16 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\n\\nphysical impairment within the definition of the ADA. This\\nargument is not persuasive. The ADA is an antidiscrimina-\\ntion—not a public health—statute, and Congress’s desires as\\nit relates to the ADA do not necessarily align with those of the\\nmedical community. Moreover, amici’s argument proves too\\nmuch; if we agreed that obesity is itself a physiological disor-\\nder, then all obesity would be an ADA impairment. While\\nRichardson does not ask us to hold that all obese individu-\\nals—found to be as high as 39.8% of the American adult pop-\\nulation8—automatically have an ADA impairment, adopting\\namici’s position leads to this unavoidable, nonrealistic result.\\n At bottom, Richardson does not present any evidence sug-\\ngesting an underlying physiological disorder or condition\\ncaused his extreme obesity.9 Without such evidence, we can-\\nnot call Richardson’s extreme obesity a physical impairment\\n\\n\\n\\nlation of body fat.” SSR 00-3p, 2000 WL 33952015 (May 15, 2000). Addi-\\ntionally, in 2017, the Senate passed by unanimous consent a resolution in\\nsupport of “National Obesity Care Week,” recognizing “the disease of\\nobesity,” S. Res. 325, 115th Cong. (2017), and in 2018, the National Lieu-\\ntenant Governors Association passed a resolution which called obesity “a\\nchronic disease.” Nat’l Lieutenant Governors Ass’n, Resolution in Support\\nof the Treatment and Prevention of Obesity (June 29, 2018),\\nhttps://www.nlga.us/wp-content/uploads/2018-Resolution-in-Support-\\nof-the-Prevention-and-Treatment-of-Obesity-2.pdf.\\n 8 See U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., Prevalence of Obesity Among\\n\\nAdults and Youth: United States, 2015–2016 (Oct. 2017),\\nhttps://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db288.pdf.\\n 9True, Richardson’s pulmonologist submitted a declaration stating\\nRichardson’s hypertension and sleep apnea were “related to” his obesity.\\nHowever, there is nothing in the record suggesting Richardson’s hyper-\\ntension or sleep apnea caused his obesity.\\n\\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 17\\n\\nwithin the meaning of the ADA and the EEOC regulation. See\\nMorriss, 817 F.3d at 1112; Watkins, 463 F.3d at 443.10\\n 2. Perceived Impairment\\n Alternatively, Richardson argues that even if we hold ex-\\ntreme obesity is not itself an impairment, he is still disabled\\nunder the ADA because CTA perceived his obesity to be a\\nphysical impairment. See 42 U.S.C. § 12102(3)(A). To succeed\\non this claim, Richardson must show CTA took adverse action\\nagainst him based on the belief that his condition was an im-\\npairment—as the ADA defines that term—not merely based\\non knowledge of Richardson’s physical characteristic. See\\nMorriss, 817 F.3d at 1113 (“[A]s a threshold matter, [the em-\\nployee] was required to show that [the employer] perceived\\nhis obesity to be a condition that met the definition of ‘physi-\\ncal impairment.’”); Francis, 129 F.3d at 285 (“[T]he plaintiff\\nmust allege that the employer believed, however erroneously,\\n\\n\\n 10 Richardson also suggests the fact that he “suffered from extreme\\nobesity … alone is sufficient … to establish that he meets the definition of\\n‘disability’ under the ADA.” Cf. Watkins, 463 F.3d at 443–45 & n.1 (Gib-\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2577,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4628980,"string":"4,628,980"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Mark Richardson v. CTA"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-06-12"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"17-3508"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before FLAUM, KANNE, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\nMARK RICHARDSON,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nCHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY,\\n Defendant-Appellee.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeals from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 16-cv-03027 — John Robert Blakey, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED MAY 14, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 12, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before FLAUM, KANNE, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\\n FLAUM, Circuit Judge. Mark Richardson, a former Chicago\\nTransit Authority (“CTA”) bus operator, alleged CTA took ad-\\nverse action against him because of his extreme obesity in vi-\\nolation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990\\n(“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101–12213, as amended by the ADA\\nAmendments Act of 2008 (“ADAAA”), Pub. L. No. 110-325,\\n122 Stat. 3553. The district court disagreed. It held extreme\\nobesity only qualifies as a disability under the ADA if it is\\n\\f2 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\n\\ncaused by an underlying physiological disorder or condition,\\nand granted CTA’s motion for summary judgment because\\nRichardson offered no such evidence. Richardson appeals this\\nholding, as well as the district court’s decision to tax costs\\nagainst him. We affirm.\\n I. Background\\n Mark Richardson began working for CTA in 1993 as a tem-\\nporary bus operator, and he worked as a full-time operator\\nfrom August 1999 until February 2012. According to a CTA\\ndoctor, Richardson weighed 350 pounds in January 2005. And\\nanother CTA doctor indicated Richardson weighed 566\\npounds in May 2009. Based on his Body Mass Index (a stand-\\nardized weight-to-height ratio used to determine whether an\\nindividual is underweight, within the normal weight range,\\noverweight, or obese) Richardson has “extreme” obesity\\nwhenever he weighs over 315 pounds. He also suffers from\\nhypertension and sleep apnea.\\n Beginning in early February 2010, Richardson was absent\\nfrom work because he had the flu. He attempted to return to\\nwork on February 19, but Advanced Occupational Medicine\\nServices (“AOMS”)—CTA’s third-party medical provider—\\ndocumented that Richardson had uncontrolled hypertension\\nand influenza, weighed over 400 pounds, and could not re-\\nturn to work until he controlled his blood pressure. For that\\nreason, on April 9, CTA’s Disability Review Committee trans-\\nferred Richardson to Temporary Medical Disability–Area 605\\n(“Area 605”). CTA administrative procedures define Area 605\\nas a “budgetary assignment for eligible union employees who\\nhave been found medically unfit to perform the essential\\nfunctions of their job classification due to an illness or injury.”\\n\\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 3\\n\\n On September 13, 2010, AOMS examined Richardson’s fit-\\nness to return to work. It found Richardson “physically fit to\\nwork as a bus operator,” but indicated Richardson “must be\\ncleared by safety prior to operating [a] bus.” CTA requires\\nAOMS to report if a bus operator returning from extended\\nleave weighs over 400 pounds because CTA bus seats are not\\ndesigned to accommodate drivers weighing over 400 pounds.\\nWeighing over this maximum does not, however, automati-\\ncally disqualify employees from working as bus operators.\\nCTA permits such employees to operate buses if the safety de-\\npartment finds they can safely perform their job. To make this\\ndetermination, CTA administers a “special assessment,” a\\ndriving performance test used to determine whether bus op-\\nerators can perform all standard operating procedures on six\\ntypes of CTA buses.\\n On September 16, 2010, Richardson completed a special\\nassessment. CTA’s Acting Manager of Bus Instruction, Marie\\nStewart, assigned Bus Instructors John Durnell and Elon\\nMcElroy to administer the test. During the assessment, Dur-\\nnell and McElroy joked about Richardson’s weight. Durnell\\ntestified he was just trying “to lighten up the situation,” and\\nasserted that in response, Richardson “started laughing and\\nhe started to relax.” Nevertheless, McElroy reported Durnell’s\\ncomments to Stewart, and Stewart reprimanded Durnell for\\nunprofessionalism.\\n Following the assessment, Durnell and McElroy each com-\\npleted a report. While Durnell concluded Richardson “can\\ndrive all of CTA’s buses in a safe and trusted manner,” both\\ninstructors noted several safety concerns: Richardson cross-\\npedaled, meaning his foot was on the gas and brake at the\\nsame time; Richardson was unable to make hand-over-hand\\n\\f4 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\n\\nturns; Richardson’s leg rested close to the door handle; Rich-\\nardson could not see the floor of the bus from his seat; part of\\nRichardson’s body hung off the driver’s seat; and the seat de-\\nflated when Richardson sat. Additionally, both instructors\\nnoted Richardson wore a seatbelt extender, wrote that Rich-\\nardson was “sweating heavily” and needed to lean onto the\\nbus for balance, and Durnell commented on a “hygiene prob-\\nlem.” At his deposition, McElroy testified that as a “former\\nheart patient,” he was worried Richardson’s “sweating\\n[could] lead to an episode.”\\n Stewart drafted a memorandum to CTA’s Vice President\\nof Bus Operations, Earl Swopes, concluding that “[b]ased on\\nthe Bus Instructors[’] observations and findings, the limited\\nspace in the driver’s area and the manufacturer requirements,\\nit would be unsafe for Bus Operator Richardson to operate\\nany CTA bus at this time.” She specifically referenced the\\nsafety concerns listed above. Moreover, Stewart wrote that\\n“[t]he maximum allowable weight per the manufacturer re-\\nquirements for CTA buses is 400 pounds,” and “[i]t has been\\nrepresented that Operator Richardson is over that weight\\nmaximum.” Because Richardson failed the assessment and\\ncould not adhere to all CTA operating procedures, Swopes\\ndetermined that Richardson could not safely operate CTA\\nbuses. Swopes testified he based this decision solely on Stew-\\nart’s memorandum, without any independent investigation.\\n Instead of immediately terminating Richardson’s employ-\\nment, CTA proposed a written agreement: CTA would trans-\\nfer Richardson back to Area 605 so he could work with doc-\\ntors to lose weight and be subject to periodic monitoring; in\\nexchange, Richardson would release his ability to bring vari-\\nous causes of action. Richardson refused. In March 2011, CTA\\n\\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 5\\n\\nnonetheless transferred Richardson to Area 605; the accompa-\\nnying form provides as a rationale that Richardson “exceeded\\nthe weight requirement to operate the bus.” In October 2011,\\nCTA informed Richardson that he was approaching two years\\nof inactive status, and per CTA policy, he could extend his\\ntime in Area 605 by one year by submitting medical documen-\\ntation. Richardson did not submit documentation, and in Feb-\\nruary 2012, CTA terminated his employment.\\n On December 15, 2015, the Equal Employment Oppor-\\ntunity Commission (“EEOC”) issued Richardson a right-to-\\nsue letter, and on March 10, 2016, Richardson brought the op-\\nerative complaint against CTA, alleging it violated the ADA\\nby “refus[ing] to allow [him] to return to work because it re-\\ngarded him as being too obese to work as a bus operator.” On\\nOctober 17, 2016, the district court denied CTA’s motion to\\ndismiss, ruling that “[e]ven if [Richardson] is ultimately re-\\nquired to prove that his obesity was caused by a physiological\\ndisorder, he is not required to allege the same.” On April 20,\\n2017, Richardson and CTA filed cross-motions for summary\\njudgment, and on November 13, 2017, the district court de-\\nnied Richardson’s motion and granted CTA’s motion. It held,\\nbased on the language of the ADA and the pertinent EEOC\\nregulation and interpretive guidance, that “to qualify as a pro-\\ntected physical impairment, claimants under the ADA must\\nshow that their severe obesity is caused by an underlying\\nphysiological disorder or condition.” Because Richardson\\npresented no such evidence, the district court entered judg-\\nment in CTA’s favor.\\n On December 7, 2017, CTA filed its bill of costs, seeking to\\nrecover $7,333.56 in deposition and copying costs as the pre-\\nvailing party pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\\n\\f6 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\n\\n54(d)(1). Richardson argued costs should not be taxed because\\nof his inability to pay, or alternatively, CTA’s costs should be\\nreduced because transcript delivery fees are not recoverable\\nand the transcript costs CTA sought were over the rate al-\\nlowed by local rules. On May 1, 2018, the district court issued\\na minute order taxing $2,067.26 in costs. It denied copying\\ncosts because the documents were available on the electronic\\ndocket, and it reduced deposition transcript costs.\\n Richardson separately appealed the district court’s grant\\nof CTA’s motion for summary judgment and decision to tax\\ncosts. We consolidated the appeals for resolution.\\n II. Discussion\\n A. The ADA and Obesity\\n We review cross-motions for summary judgment de novo,\\n“construing all facts and drawing all reasonable inferences in\\nfavor of the party against whom the motion under considera-\\ntion was filed.” Hess v. Bd. of Trs. of S. Ill. Univ., 839 F.3d 668,\\n673 (7th Cir. 2016). Here, we consider only CTA’s motion for\\nsummary judgment, so we draw all facts in favor of Richard-\\nson. Summary judgment is proper “where there are no genu-\\nine issues of material fact and the movant is entitled to judg-\\nment as a matter of law.” Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)).\\n The ADA prohibits employers from “discriminat[ing]\\nagainst a qualified individual on the basis of disability.”\\n42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). To succeed on an ADA claim, an em-\\nployee must show: “(1) he is disabled; (2) he is otherwise qual-\\nified to perform the essential functions of the job with or with-\\nout reasonable accommodation; and (3) the adverse job action\\nwas caused by his disability.” Roberts v. City of Chicago, 817\\nF.3d 561, 565 (7th Cir. 2016).\\n\\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 7\\n\\n The ADA defines disability as: “(A) a physical or mental\\nimpairment that substantially limits one or more major life ac-\\ntivities of [an] individual; (B) a record of such an impairment;\\nor (C) being regarded as having such an impairment.”\\n42 U.S.C. § 12102(1). Richardson focuses his claim on the “re-\\ngarded as” prong. To succeed, he must establish he was sub-\\nject to a prohibited employment action “because of an actual\\nor perceived physical or mental impairment whether or not\\nthe impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life ac-\\ntivity.” Id. § 12102(3)(A). At issue here, then, is whether Rich-\\nardson can demonstrate either: (1) his extreme obesity is an\\nactual impairment; or (2) CTA perceived his extreme obesity\\nto be an impairment.\\n 1. Actual Impairment\\n Congress has not defined “impairment.” In a regulation\\nimplementing the ADA, however, the EEOC defined “physi-\\ncal impairment” as: “Any physiological disorder or condition,\\ncosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or\\nmore body systems, such as neurological, musculoskeletal,\\nspecial sense organs, respiratory (including speech organs),\\ncardiovascular, reproductive, digestive, genitourinary, im-\\nmune, circulatory, hemic, lymphatic, skin, and endocrine.” 29\\nC.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1). EEOC regulations interpreting the ADA\\nare entitled to deference under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural\\nResources Defense Council, Inc., unless they are “arbitrary, ca-\\npricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.” 467 U.S. 837,\\n844 (1984); see Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 130 F.3d 893, 899\\nn.3 (10th Cir. 1997).\\n Richardson and CTA disagree about whether his extreme\\nobesity—even without evidence of an underlying physiolog-\\nical condition—meets the definition of physical impairment\\n\\f8 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\n\\nand is thus an actionable disability for ADA purposes. This is\\nan issue of first impression for this Circuit. However, three of\\nour sister circuits have considered the question; each has held,\\nbased on the language of 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1), that obesity\\nis an ADA impairment only if it is the result of an underlying\\n“physiological disorder or condition.” See Morriss v. BNSF Ry.\\nCo., 817 F.3d 1104, 1108–13 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 256\\n(2016); EEOC v. Watkins Motor Lines, Inc., 463 F.3d 436, 441–43\\n(6th Cir. 2006); Francis v. City of Meriden, 129 F.3d 281, 286–87\\n(2d Cir. 1997).1 The majority of district courts have also ex-\\npressed this view.2 In contrast, only a small number of district\\ncourts have held extreme obesity is an ADA impairment even\\nwithout evidence of a physiological cause. See, e.g., Velez v.\\nCloghan Concepts, LLC, No. 18-cv-1901, 2019 WL 2423145, at *4\\n(S.D. Cal. June 10, 2019); Velez v. II Fornanio (Am.) Corp., No.\\n18-cv-1840, 2018 WL 6446169, at *2–4 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2018);\\nMcCollum v. Livingston, No. 14-cv-3253, 2017 WL 608665, at\\n\\n 1 The Ninth Circuit has acknowledged that “the scope of ADA protec-\\n\\ntion for individuals suffering from obesity … presents an open question\\nof federal law in this circuit,” but it has not had to resolve the issue. Taylor\\nv. Burlington N. R.R. Holdings, Inc., 904 F.3d 846, 851–53 (9th Cir. 2018).\\n 2 See, e.g., Sturgill v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., No. 18-cv-566, 2019 WL 1063374,\\n\\nat *3–4 (E.D. Va. Mar. 6, 2019); Shell v. Burlington N. Santa Fe Ry. Co., No.\\n15-cv-11040, 2018 WL 1156249, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 5, 2018); Brownwood v.\\nWells Trucking, LLC, No. 16-cv-01264, 2017 WL 9289453, at *6 (D. Colo.\\nNov. 9, 2017); Silva v. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs for the Cty. of Roosevelt, No. 15-cv-\\n1046, 2017 WL 4325769, at *7–8 (D.N.M. Sept. 26, 2017); Valtierra v. Med-\\ntronic Inc., 232 F. Supp. 3d 1117, 1123–25 (D. Ariz. 2017); Revolinski v.\\nAmtrak, No. 08-cv-1098, 2011 WL 2037015, at *11 (E.D. Wis. May 24, 2011);\\nHayes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 781 F. Supp. 2d 1080, 1091 (D. Or. 2011); Ni\\nv. Rite Aid of N.J., No. 10-cv-1522, 2010 WL 2557523, at *3 (D.N.J. June 22,\\n2010); Hill v. Verizon Md., Inc., No. 07-cv-3123, 2009 WL 2060088, at *6 (D.\\nMd. July 13, 2009).\\n\\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 9\\n\\n*35 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 3, 2017); EEOC v. Res. for Human Dev., Inc.,\\n827 F. Supp. 2d 688, 693–95 (E.D. La. 2011); Lowe v. Am. Eu-\\nrocopter, LLC, No. 10-cv-24, 2010 WL 5232523, at *7–8 (N.D.\\nMiss. Dec. 16, 2010).3 We join the Second, Sixth, and Eighth\\nCircuits. Without evidence that Richardson’s extreme obesity\\nwas caused by a physiological disorder or condition, his obe-\\nsity is not a physical impairment under the plain language of\\nthe EEOC regulation.\\n In his arguments to the contrary, Richardson focuses first\\non the ADAAA. Congress passed these amendments in 2008\\nto ensure that the ADA’s “definition of disability … be con-\\nstrued in favor of broad coverage.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(4)(A).\\nCongress emphasized “that the primary object of attention in\\ncases brought under the ADA should be whether entities cov-\\nered under the ADA have complied with their obligations,”\\nwhile “the question of whether an individual’s impairment is\\na disability under the ADA should not demand extensive\\nanalysis.” ADAAA § 2(b)(5), 122 Stat. at 3554.\\n Specifically, Congress sought to broaden the scope of the\\n“being regarded as having such an impairment” definition of\\ndisability. Id. § 2(b)(3); see Miller v. Ill. Dep’t of Transp., 643 F.3d\\n190, 196 (7th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he ‘regarded as’ prong is an im-\\nportant protection that should not be nullified by creating an\\nimpossibly high standard of proof, as Congress indicated\\neven more strongly in the 2008 amendments.”). It rejected the\\nSupreme Court’s decision in Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc.,\\n\\n\\n\\n 3 The Montana Supreme Court reached a similar conclusion, discuss-\\ning the ADA when interpreting the analogous Montana law. BNSF Ry. Co.\\nv. Feit, 281 P.3d 225, 230–31 (Mont. 2012).\\n\\f10 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\n\\n527 U.S. 471 (1999), which held that to be regarded as disa-\\nbled, an employee’s disability must substantially limit a major\\nlife activity. See id. at 490 (“An employer runs afoul of the\\nADA when it makes an employment decision based on a\\nphysical or mental impairment, real or imagined, that is re-\\ngarded as substantially limiting a major life activity.”). There-\\nfore, Congress amended the ADA to make clear an individual\\ncan be “regarded as” having an impairment “whether or not\\nthe impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life ac-\\ntivity,” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(3)(A), and the EEOC adopted regu-\\nlations to the same effect. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(2)\\n(“Whether an individual’s impairment ‘substantially limits’ a\\nmajor life activity is not relevant to coverage under … the ‘re-\\ngarded as’ prong.”); id. § 1630.2(l)(1).\\n Additionally, Congress relaxed court-imposed rules as to\\nhow severe an impairment must be to be considered a disa-\\nbility. It sought to abrogate the Supreme Court’s decisions in\\nSutton and Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Wil-\\nliams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002), because the Court’s definition of\\n“substantially limits a major life activity” in those cases “cre-\\nated an inappropriately high level of limitation necessary to\\nobtain coverage under the ADA” by requiring that employees\\nhave an impairment that “severely restrict[ed]” a major life\\nactivity. ADAAA § 2(b)(2)–(5), 122 Stat. at 3554.4 It found that\\n\\n 4See Toyota, 534 U.S. at 197–98 (holding “substantially” and “major”\\n“need to be interpreted strictly to create a demanding standard for quali-\\nfying as disabled,” and therefore, to be disabled “an individual must have\\nan impairment that prevents or severely restricts the individual from do-\\ning activities that are of central importance to most people’s daily lives”);\\nSutton, 527 U.S. at 482–83 (“A person whose physical or mental impair-\\nment is corrected by medication or other measures does not have an im-\\npairment that presently ‘substantially limits’ a major life activity.”).\\n\\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 11\\n\\nEEOC regulations “defining the term ‘substantially limits’ as\\n‘significantly restricted’ [were] inconsistent with congres-\\nsional intent[] by expressing too high a standard,” and ex-\\npressed its “expectation” that the EEOC would revise its reg-\\nulations. Id. § 2(a)(8), (b)(6). The EEOC adhered to this di-\\nrective. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii) (“An impairment need\\nnot prevent, or significantly or severely restrict, the individual\\nfrom performing a major life activity in order to be considered\\nsubstantially limiting.”); id. § 1630.2(i)(2) (“[T]he term ‘major’\\nshall not be interpreted strictly to create a demanding stand-\\nard for disability.”).\\n Richardson contends that after the ADAAA, courts must\\nbroadly construe impairment to encompass extreme obesity,\\neven without evidence of an underlying physiological condi-\\ntion. Cf. EEOC v. BNSF Ry. Co., 902 F.3d 916, 923 (9th Cir. 2018)\\n(“impairment” should be interpreted “broadly” after the\\nADAAA). We disagree. While Congress criticized the Su-\\npreme Court’s understanding of “substantially limits a major\\nlife activity” at length, it said nothing about judicial interpre-\\ntation of impairment. See Morriss, 817 F.3d at 1111. Likewise,\\nwhile Congress instructed the EEOC to alter its definitions of\\n“substantially limits” and “major life activity,” it made no\\nsuch instruction with respect to the EEOC’s definition of im-\\npairment. See id. Indeed, the ADAAA’s legislative history ex-\\nplicitly states that Congress “expect[ed] that the currently reg-\\nulatory definition of [physical or mental impairment], as\\npromulgated by agencies such as the [EEOC] … [would] not\\nchange.” Statement of the Managers to Accompany S. 3406,\\nThe Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of\\n2008, 154 Cong. Rec. S8342-01, S8345 (Sept. 11, 2008). The\\nEEOC therefore did not modify its regulation defining im-\\n\\f12 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\n\\npairment, and even after the ADAAA, the definition of phys-\\nical impairment remains inextricably tied to a “physiological\\ndisorder or condition.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1); see Morriss,\\n817 F.3d at 1111 (“The ADAAA’s general policy statement\\ncannot trump this plain language.”).\\n Next, Richardson insists that we must interpret the\\nEEOC’s definition of physical impairment in light of EEOC\\ninterpretive guidance. That guidance, which interprets both\\nthe ADA and the EEOC regulation, states:\\n It is important to distinguish between condi-\\n tions that are impairments and physical, psy-\\n chological, environmental, cultural, and eco-\\n nomic characteristics that are not impairments.\\n The definition of the term “impairment” does\\n not include physical characteristics such as eye\\n color, hair color, left-handedness, or height,\\n weight, or muscle tone that are within “normal”\\n range and are not the result of a physiological\\n disorder.\\n29 C.F.R. pt. 1630, app. § 1630.2(h). While EEOC interpretive\\nguidance is “not entitled to full Chevron deference,” it does\\n“reflect a body of experience and informed judgment to which\\ncourts and litigants may properly resort for guidance” and is\\ntherefore “entitled to a measure of respect under the less def-\\nerential Skidmore [v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944)] stand-\\nard.” Fed. Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389, 399 (2008)\\n(citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see Gile v.\\nUnited Airlines, Inc., 95 F.3d 492, 497 (7th Cir. 1996).\\n According to Richardson, this EEOC guidance specifies\\nthat “impairment does not include the physical characteristic\\n\\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 13\\n\\nof weight if both of the following elements are present: (1) the\\nweight [is] within the normal range; and (2) the weight is not\\nthe result of a physiological disorder.” The Montana Supreme\\nCourt adopted this interpretation. BNSF Ry. Co. v. Feit, 281\\nP.3d 225, 229 (Mont. 2012). So did at least three district courts.\\nSee Velez, 2019 WL 2423145, at *4; Velez, 2018 WL 6446169, at\\n*4; Res. for Human Dev., 827 F. Supp. 2d at 694. Removing the\\nnegatives, Richardson posits that “[i]mpairment does include\\nthe physical characteristic of weight if either of the following\\nelements are true: (1) the weight is not within the normal\\nrange; or (2) the weight is the result of a physiological disor-\\nder.”\\n Like the Eighth Circuit, we do not find this reading of the\\ninterpretive guidance persuasive. Rather, “a more natural\\nreading of the interpretive guidance is that an individual’s\\nweight is generally a physical characteristic that qualifies as a\\nphysical impairment only if it falls outside the normal range\\nand it occurs as the result of a physiological disorder.” Morriss,\\n817 F.3d at 1108. As the Eighth Circuit reasoned, “reading …\\nthe EEOC interpretive guidance in its entirety supports this\\nconclusion” because, for example, “the interpretive guidance\\nalso provides that ‘[o]ther conditions, such as pregnancy, that\\nare not the result of a physiological disorder are also not im-\\npairments.’” Id. at 1108–09 (alteration in original) (quoting\\n29 C.F.R. pt. 1630, app. § 1630.2(h)).\\n Moreover, Richardson’s preferred interpretation is over-\\nbroad. If we were to read the EEOC interpretive guidance in\\nthe way he suggests, even an employee with normal weight\\ncould claim a weight-based physical impairment if his weight\\nwas the result of a physiological disorder. Likewise, any em-\\nployee whose weight—or other physical characteristic—is\\n\\f14 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\n\\neven slightly outside the “normal range” would have a phys-\\nical impairment even with no underlying physiological cause.\\nSuch results are inconsistent with the ADA’s text and purpose\\nand must be rejected. Otherwise, “the ‘regarded as’ prong …\\nwould become a catch-all cause of action for discrimination\\nbased on appearance, size, and any number of other things far\\nremoved from the reasons the [ADA] [was] passed.” Watkins,\\n463 F.3d at 443 (quoting Francis, 129 F.3d at 287).\\n In any event, even if this interpretive guidance means\\nwhat Richardson says it means, we do not defer to EEOC\\nguidance that is contrary to the text of the regulation it pur-\\nports to interpret. See Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.,\\n567 U.S. 142, 155 (2012) (“Deference is undoubtedly inappro-\\npriate … when the agency’s interpretation is ‘plainly errone-\\nous or inconsistent with the regulation.’” (quoting Auer v. Rob-\\nbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461 (1997))). The EEOC defines physical im-\\npairment as a “physiological disorder or condition.” 29 C.F.R.\\n§ 1630.2(h)(1). It is directly contrary to that definition to con-\\nsider a physical characteristic such as weight, even if outside\\nthe “normal range,” a physical impairment absent evidence\\nof an underlying physiological condition.5\\n\\n\\n 5 Richardson also emphasizes the EEOC has consistently expressed its\\n\\nview that extreme obesity is a physical impairment. In a compliance man-\\nual, the EEOC stated that while “[b]eing overweight, in and of itself, gen-\\nerally is not an impairment …, severe obesity, which has been defined as\\nbody weight more than 100% over the norm, is clearly an impairment.”\\nEEOC Compliance Manual § 902.2(c)(5)(ii) (2012) (citations and footnotes\\nomitted). The EEOC has also taken this position in litigation, both as plain-\\ntiff and amicus. True, courts may generally defer to both EEOC policy\\nstatements in a compliance manual and EEOC’s interpretation of its own\\nregulation in legal briefs. Christopher, 567 U.S. at 155; Holowecki, 552 U.S. at\\n399; see Bible v. United Student Aid Funds, Inc., 799 F.3d 633, 663 (7th Cir.\\n\\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 15\\n\\n Patient and scientific professional organizations, as amici\\ncuriae, make a somewhat related, but distinct argument. They\\ninsist that because both the medical community6 and federal\\nand state policymakers7 understand obesity as a disease, obe-\\nsity is in and of itself a physiological disorder and therefore a\\n\\n\\n\\n2015) (Flaum, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment) (“[I]t\\nis generally appropriate to defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own\\nregulations, even when that interpretation is informally announced.”).\\nHere, however, neither the compliance manual nor EEOC’s litigation po-\\nsition are entitled to our deference. For one, the EEOC removed this para-\\ngraph from its compliance manual in 2012. See EEOC, Section 902 Defini-\\ntion of the Term Disability (2012), https://www.eeoc.gov/pol-\\nicy/docs/902cm.html. And more importantly, the EEOC’s position is in di-\\nrect conflict with the regulation because it considers extreme obesity a\\nphysical impairment even without evidence of an underlying physiologi-\\ncal disorder or condition. See Morriss, 817 F.3d at 1111 n.4, 1112.\\n 6 For example, the American Medical Association describes “obesity\\nas a disease state with multiple pathophysiological aspects requiring a\\nrange of interventions to advance obesity treatment and prevention.” Am.\\nMed. Assoc. House of Delegates, Recognition of Obesity as a Disease (2013),\\nhttps://www.npr.org/documents/2013/jun/ama-resolution-obesity.pdf.\\nLikewise, the World Health Organization concluded “obesity should be\\nconsidered a disease in its own right.” World Health Org., Obesity and\\nOverweight (2003), http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/me-\\ndia/en/gsfs_obesity.pdf. And the National Institutes of Health said “[o]be-\\nsity is a complex, multifactorial chronic disease.” Nat’l Insts. of Health,\\nClinical Guidelines on the Identification, Evaluation, and Treatment of Over-\\nweight and Obesity in Adults, at xi (1998),\\nhttps://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/files/docs/guidelines/ob_gdlns.pdf.\\n 7 For instance, the Internal Revenue Service decided an individual\\ncould deduct costs of a weight-loss program as a medical care expense\\nbecause he had “a disease, obesity,” I.R.S. Rev. Rul. 2002-19, 2002 WL\\n484628 (Apr. 2, 2002), and the Social Security Administration recognized\\nobesity as “a complex, chronic disease characterized by excessive accumu-\\n\\f16 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\n\\nphysical impairment within the definition of the ADA. This\\nargument is not persuasive. The ADA is an antidiscrimina-\\ntion—not a public health—statute, and Congress’s desires as\\nit relates to the ADA do not necessarily align with those of the\\nmedical community. Moreover, amici’s argument proves too\\nmuch; if we agreed that obesity is itself a physiological disor-\\nder, then all obesity would be an ADA impairment. While\\nRichardson does not ask us to hold that all obese individu-\\nals—found to be as high as 39.8% of the American adult pop-\\nulation8—automatically have an ADA impairment, adopting\\namici’s position leads to this unavoidable, nonrealistic result.\\n At bottom, Richardson does not present any evidence sug-\\ngesting an underlying physiological disorder or condition\\ncaused his extreme obesity.9 Without such evidence, we can-\\nnot call Richardson’s extreme obesity a physical impairment\\n\\n\\n\\nlation of body fat.” SSR 00-3p, 2000 WL 33952015 (May 15, 2000). Addi-\\ntionally, in 2017, the Senate passed by unanimous consent a resolution in\\nsupport of “National Obesity Care Week,” recognizing “the disease of\\nobesity,” S. Res. 325, 115th Cong. (2017), and in 2018, the National Lieu-\\ntenant Governors Association passed a resolution which called obesity “a\\nchronic disease.” Nat’l Lieutenant Governors Ass’n, Resolution in Support\\nof the Treatment and Prevention of Obesity (June 29, 2018),\\nhttps://www.nlga.us/wp-content/uploads/2018-Resolution-in-Support-\\nof-the-Prevention-and-Treatment-of-Obesity-2.pdf.\\n 8 See U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., Prevalence of Obesity Among\\n\\nAdults and Youth: United States, 2015–2016 (Oct. 2017),\\nhttps://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db288.pdf.\\n 9True, Richardson’s pulmonologist submitted a declaration stating\\nRichardson’s hypertension and sleep apnea were “related to” his obesity.\\nHowever, there is nothing in the record suggesting Richardson’s hyper-\\ntension or sleep apnea caused his obesity.\\n\\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 17\\n\\nwithin the meaning of the ADA and the EEOC regulation. See\\nMorriss, 817 F.3d at 1112; Watkins, 463 F.3d at 443.10\\n 2. Perceived Impairment\\n Alternatively, Richardson argues that even if we hold ex-\\ntreme obesity is not itself an impairment, he is still disabled\\nunder the ADA because CTA perceived his obesity to be a\\nphysical impairment. See 42 U.S.C. § 12102(3)(A). To succeed\\non this claim, Richardson must show CTA took adverse action\\nagainst him based on the belief that his condition was an im-\\npairment—as the ADA defines that term—not merely based\\non knowledge of Richardson’s physical characteristic. See\\nMorriss, 817 F.3d at 1113 (“[A]s a threshold matter, [the em-\\nployee] was required to show that [the employer] perceived\\nhis obesity to be a condition that met the definition of ‘physi-\\ncal impairment.’”); Francis, 129 F.3d at 285 (“[T]he plaintiff\\nmust allege that the employer believed, however erroneously,\\n\\n\\n 10 Richardson also suggests the fact that he “suffered from extreme\\nobesity … alone is sufficient … to establish that he meets the definition of\\n‘disability’ under the ADA.” Cf. Watkins, 463 F.3d at 443–45 & n.1 (Gib-\", \"author\": \"Joel Martin Flaum\"}, {\"type\": \"concurrence\", \"author\": \"bons\", \"text\": \"bons, J., concurring) (opining that “[i]t is possible that morbid obesity is a\\ndisorder that by its very nature has a physiological cause,” but agreeing\\nsummary judgment was proper because the plaintiff put forth no evidence\\nto that effect); Cook v. State of R.I., Dep’t of Mental Health, Retardation, &\\nHosps., 10 F.3d 17, 23 (1st Cir. 1993) (concluding a jury could find that\\nplaintiff’s “morbid obesity” was a “physical impairment” because “she\\npresented expert testimony that morbid obesity is a physiological disorder\\ninvolving a dysfunction of both the metabolic system and the neurological\\nappetite-suppressing signal system, capable of causing adverse effects\\nwithin the musculoskeletal, respiratory, and cardiovascular system”). We\\nneed not decide whether, on a particular evidentiary showing, extreme\\nobesity alone can be considered a physiological condition because Rich-\\nardson presented no such evidence.\\n\\f18 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\n\\nthat the plaintiff suffered from an ‘impairment’ that, if it truly\\nexisted, would be covered under the [ADA] ….”). In other\\nwords, Richardson must present sufficient evidence to permit\\na reasonable jury to infer that CTA perceived his extreme obe-\\nsity was caused by an underlying physiological disorder or\\ncondition.\\n Richardson did not make this showing. To be sure, Rich-\\nardson introduced evidence that CTA took adverse action\\nagainst him based on his excessive weight. For example, CTA\\ntransferred Richardson to Area 605 because he exceeded the\\nweight specifications for CTA buses. Additionally, CTA re-\\nquired Richardson to take a special assessment because he\\nweighed over 400 pounds, not because of any violation of\\nCTA standard operating procedures. And in Stewart’s mem-\\norandum to Swopes summarizing the results of the special as-\\nsessment, she highlighted safety concerns directly related to\\nRichardson’s weight: he could not perform hand-over-hand\\nturning, he cross-pedaled, he had difficulty getting in and out\\nof the driver’s seat, his body hung off the seat, his leg was\\nclose to the door handle, and he exceeded the 400-pound max-\\nimum per CTA bus manufacturer requirements. But there is\\nno evidence Stewart, Swopes, or anyone else at CTA believed\\nRichardson’s excessive weight was caused by a physiological\\ndisorder or condition. To the contrary, the evidence suggests\\nCTA perceived Richardson’s weight as a physical characteris-\\ntic that made it unsafe for him to drive. These facts do not per-\\nmit a finding that CTA regarded Richardson as disabled for\\npurposes of ADA liability. See Francis, 129 F.3d at 287 (no lia-\\nbility where plaintiff “alleges only that [defendant] regarded\\nhim as disabled because it disciplined him for failing to meet\\na weight standard applied to all of its employees,” and not\\n\\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 19\\n\\n“because it perceived him as suffering from a physiological\\nweight-related disorder”).\\n Richardson cites to the First Circuit’s opinion in Cook v.\\nState of Rhode Island, Department of Mental Health, Retardation,\\n& Hospitals, 10 F.3d 17 (1st Cir. 1993), and suggests that the\\ncourt held a jury could find an employer perceived an em-\\nployee’s extreme obesity as a physical impairment merely be-\\ncause the employer “stated concerns about the plaintiff’s abil-\\nity to perform her job duties.” Richardson reads Cook too\\nbroadly. In Cook, the court affirmed a jury verdict in favor of\\nthe plaintiff under the identical “perceived disability” provi-\\nsion of the Rehabilitation Act. Id. at 23. The court explained\\nthat a jury could have found the defendant treated the plain-\\ntiff “as if she had a physical impairment” because the evi-\\ndence “show[ed] conclusively that [the defendant] treated\\nplaintiff’s obesity as if it actually affected her musculoskeletal\\nand cardiovascular systems.” Id. Critically, the court empha-\\nsized that the plaintiff presented “expert testimony that mor-\\nbid obesity is a physiological disorder.” Id. Here, by contrast,\\nRichardson presented no such evidence. The district court\\nthus properly held that CTA could not have perceived Rich-\\nardson as having a physical impairment within the ADA’s\\ndefinition.\\n B. Costs\\n “Unless a federal statute, [the Federal Rules of Civil Pro-\\ncedure], or a court order provides otherwise, costs—other\\nthan attorney’s fees—should be allowed to the prevailing\\nparty.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). “There is a presumption that\\nthe prevailing party will recover costs, and the losing party\\nbears the burden of an affirmative showing that taxed costs\\nare not appropriate.” Beamon v. Marshall & Ilsley Tr. Co., 411\\n\\f20 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\n\\nF.3d 854, 864 (7th Cir. 2005). This presumption “is difficult to\\novercome” and therefore, “the district court’s discretion is\\nnarrowly confined—the court must award costs unless it\\nstates good reasons for denying them.” Weeks v. Samsung\\nHeavy Indus. Co., 126 F.3d 926, 945 (7th Cir. 1997). We reverse\\na district court’s decision to award costs only after “a showing\\nof clear abuse of discretion.” Id.\\n We have held that “it is ‘within the discretion of the district\\ncourt to consider a plaintiff’s indigency’” when taxing costs\\nagainst him. Rivera v. City of Chicago, 469 F.3d 631, 634 (7th Cir.\\n2006) (quoting Badillo v. Cent. Steel & Wire Co., 717 F.2d 1160,\\n1165 (7th Cir. 1983)). To deny costs based on indigency, the\\ncourt must first “make a threshold factual finding that the los-\\ning party is ‘incapable of paying the court-imposed costs at\\nthis time or in the future.’” Id. at 635 (quoting McGill v. Faulk-\\nner, 18 F.3d 456, 459 (7th Cir. 1994)). “The burden is on the\\nlosing party to provide the district court with sufficient docu-\\nmentation to support such a finding.” Id. (internal quotation\\nmarks and citation omitted).\\n Richardson argues the district court abused its discretion\\nbecause it “completely failed to consider or address [his] ar-\\nguments and the evidence he submitted demonstrating his in-\\nability to pay the costs awarded at this time or in the future.”\\nWe disagree. To be sure, “district judges [must] provide at\\nleast a modicum of explanation when entering an award of\\ncosts.” Cengr v. Fusibond Piping Sys., Inc., 135 F.3d 445, 454 (7th\\nCir. 1998). Here however, the court provided an explanation.\\nIt made clear that CTA was entitled to costs as the prevailing\\nparty, and it provided an accounting of how it calculated costs\\nat $2,067.26 (significantly less than CTA’s initial $7,333.56 re-\\nquest). True, the district court did not mention Richardson’s\\n\\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 21\\n\\nclaim that he was indigent, but the indigence exception “is a\\nnarrow one” and “is not a blanket excuse for paying costs.”\\nRivera, 469 F.3d at 635–36. While we have held that a district\\ncourt abuses its discretion when it denies costs without expla-\\nnation on the basis of indigence, see id. at 636–37, Richardson\\ndoes not cite any case holding a district court abuses its dis-\\ncretion when it grants costs, with an explanation, but does not\\nexplicitly consider the plaintiff’s indigence. It was thus not\\nunreasonable for the district court to tax $2,067.26 in costs.\\n III. Conclusion\\n For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the\\ndistrict court.\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"FLAUM"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"KANNE"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"SCUDDER"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"FLAUM\": \", Circuit\", \"KANNE\": \", Circuit\", \"SCUDDER\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4628980/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":6,"string":"6"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Mark Richardson v. CTA\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-06-12\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: Yes\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\nMARK RICHARDSON,\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\n v.\n\nCHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY,\n Defendant-Appellee.\n ____________________\n\n Appeals from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 16-cv-03027 — John Robert Blakey, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED MAY 14, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 12, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before FLAUM, KANNE, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\n FLAUM, Circuit Judge. Mark Richardson, a former Chicago\nTransit Authority (“CTA”) bus operator, alleged CTA took ad-\nverse action against him because of his extreme obesity in vi-\nolation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990\n(“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101–12213, as amended by the ADA\nAmendments Act of 2008 (“ADAAA”), Pub. L. No. 110-325,\n122 Stat. 3553. The district court disagreed. It held extreme\nobesity only qualifies as a disability under the ADA if it is\n\f2 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\n\ncaused by an underlying physiological disorder or condition,\nand granted CTA’s motion for summary judgment because\nRichardson offered no such evidence. Richardson appeals this\nholding, as well as the district court’s decision to tax costs\nagainst him. We affirm.\n I. Background\n Mark Richardson began working for CTA in 1993 as a tem-\nporary bus operator, and he worked as a full-time operator\nfrom August 1999 until February 2012. According to a CTA\ndoctor, Richardson weighed 350 pounds in January 2005. And\nanother CTA doctor indicated Richardson weighed 566\npounds in May 2009. Based on his Body Mass Index (a stand-\nardized weight-to-height ratio used to determine whether an\nindividual is underweight, within the normal weight range,\noverweight, or obese) Richardson has “extreme” obesity\nwhenever he weighs over 315 pounds. He also suffers from\nhypertension and sleep apnea.\n Beginning in early February 2010, Richardson was absent\nfrom work because he had the flu. He attempted to return to\nwork on February 19, but Advanced Occupational Medicine\nServices (“AOMS”)—CTA’s third-party medical provider—\ndocumented that Richardson had uncontrolled hypertension\nand influenza, weighed over 400 pounds, and could not re-\nturn to work until he controlled his blood pressure. For that\nreason, on April 9, CTA’s Disability Review Committee trans-\nferred Richardson to Temporary Medical Disability–Area 605\n(“Area 605”). CTA administrative procedures define Area 605\nas a “budgetary assignment for eligible union employees who\nhave been found medically unfit to perform the essential\nfunctions of their job classification due to an illness or injury.”\n\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 3\n\n On September 13, 2010, AOMS examined Richardson’s fit-\nness to return to work. It found Richardson “physically fit to\nwork as a bus operator,” but indicated Richardson “must be\ncleared by safety prior to operating [a] bus.” CTA requires\nAOMS to report if a bus operator returning from extended\nleave weighs over 400 pounds because CTA bus seats are not\ndesigned to accommodate drivers weighing over 400 pounds.\nWeighing over this maximum does not, however, automati-\ncally disqualify employees from working as bus operators.\nCTA permits such employees to operate buses if the safety de-\npartment finds they can safely perform their job. To make this\ndetermination, CTA administers a “special assessment,” a\ndriving performance test used to determine whether bus op-\nerators can perform all standard operating procedures on six\ntypes of CTA buses.\n On September 16, 2010, Richardson completed a special\nassessment. CTA’s Acting Manager of Bus Instruction, Marie\nStewart, assigned Bus Instructors John Durnell and Elon\nMcElroy to administer the test. During the assessment, Dur-\nnell and McElroy joked about Richardson’s weight. Durnell\ntestified he was just trying “to lighten up the situation,” and\nasserted that in response, Richardson “started laughing and\nhe started to relax.” Nevertheless, McElroy reported Durnell’s\ncomments to Stewart, and Stewart reprimanded Durnell for\nunprofessionalism.\n Following the assessment, Durnell and McElroy each com-\npleted a report. While Durnell concluded Richardson “can\ndrive all of CTA’s buses in a safe and trusted manner,” both\ninstructors noted several safety concerns: Richardson cross-\npedaled, meaning his foot was on the gas and brake at the\nsame time; Richardson was unable to make hand-over-hand\n\f4 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\n\nturns; Richardson’s leg rested close to the door handle; Rich-\nardson could not see the floor of the bus from his seat; part of\nRichardson’s body hung off the driver’s seat; and the seat de-\nflated when Richardson sat. Additionally, both instructors\nnoted Richardson wore a seatbelt extender, wrote that Rich-\nardson was “sweating heavily” and needed to lean onto the\nbus for balance, and Durnell commented on a “hygiene prob-\nlem.” At his deposition, McElroy testified that as a “former\nheart patient,” he was worried Richardson’s “sweating\n[could] lead to an episode.”\n Stewart drafted a memorandum to CTA’s Vice President\nof Bus Operations, Earl Swopes, concluding that “[b]ased on\nthe Bus Instructors[’] observations and findings, the limited\nspace in the driver’s area and the manufacturer requirements,\nit would be unsafe for Bus Operator Richardson to operate\nany CTA bus at this time.” She specifically referenced the\nsafety concerns listed above. Moreover, Stewart wrote that\n“[t]he maximum allowable weight per the manufacturer re-\nquirements for CTA buses is 400 pounds,” and “[i]t has been\nrepresented that Operator Richardson is over that weight\nmaximum.” Because Richardson failed the assessment and\ncould not adhere to all CTA operating procedures, Swopes\ndetermined that Richardson could not safely operate CTA\nbuses. Swopes testified he based this decision solely on Stew-\nart’s memorandum, without any independent investigation.\n Instead of immediately terminating Richardson’s employ-\nment, CTA proposed a written agreement: CTA would trans-\nfer Richardson back to Area 605 so he could work with doc-\ntors to lose weight and be subject to periodic monitoring; in\nexchange, Richardson would release his ability to bring vari-\nous causes of action. Richardson refused. In March 2011, CTA\n\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 5\n\nnonetheless transferred Richardson to Area 605; the accompa-\nnying form provides as a rationale that Richardson “exceeded\nthe weight requirement to operate the bus.” In October 2011,\nCTA informed Richardson that he was approaching two years\nof inactive status, and per CTA policy, he could extend his\ntime in Area 605 by one year by submitting medical documen-\ntation. Richardson did not submit documentation, and in Feb-\nruary 2012, CTA terminated his employment.\n On December 15, 2015, the Equal Employment Oppor-\ntunity Commission (“EEOC”) issued Richardson a right-to-\nsue letter, and on March 10, 2016, Richardson brought the op-\nerative complaint against CTA, alleging it violated the ADA\nby “refus[ing] to allow [him] to return to work because it re-\ngarded him as being too obese to work as a bus operator.” On\nOctober 17, 2016, the district court denied CTA’s motion to\ndismiss, ruling that “[e]ven if [Richardson] is ultimately re-\nquired to prove that his obesity was caused by a physiological\ndisorder, he is not required to allege the same.” On April 20,\n2017, Richardson and CTA filed cross-motions for summary\njudgment, and on November 13, 2017, the district court de-\nnied Richardson’s motion and granted CTA’s motion. It held,\nbased on the language of the ADA and the pertinent EEOC\nregulation and interpretive guidance, that “to qualify as a pro-\ntected physical impairment, claimants under the ADA must\nshow that their severe obesity is caused by an underlying\nphysiological disorder or condition.” Because Richardson\npresented no such evidence, the district court entered judg-\nment in CTA’s favor.\n On December 7, 2017, CTA filed its bill of costs, seeking to\nrecover $7,333.56 in deposition and copying costs as the pre-\nvailing party pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\n\f6 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\n\n54(d)(1). Richardson argued costs should not be taxed because\nof his inability to pay, or alternatively, CTA’s costs should be\nreduced because transcript delivery fees are not recoverable\nand the transcript costs CTA sought were over the rate al-\nlowed by local rules. On May 1, 2018, the district court issued\na minute order taxing $2,067.26 in costs. It denied copying\ncosts because the documents were available on the electronic\ndocket, and it reduced deposition transcript costs.\n Richardson separately appealed the district court’s grant\nof CTA’s motion for summary judgment and decision to tax\ncosts. We consolidated the appeals for resolution.\n II. Discussion\n A. The ADA and Obesity\n We review cross-motions for summary judgment de novo,\n“construing all facts and drawing all reasonable inferences in\nfavor of the party against whom the motion under considera-\ntion was filed.” Hess v. Bd. of Trs. of S. Ill. Univ., 839 F.3d 668,\n673 (7th Cir. 2016). Here, we consider only CTA’s motion for\nsummary judgment, so we draw all facts in favor of Richard-\nson. Summary judgment is proper “where there are no genu-\nine issues of material fact and the movant is entitled to judg-\nment as a matter of law.” Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)).\n The ADA prohibits employers from “discriminat[ing]\nagainst a qualified individual on the basis of disability.”\n42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). To succeed on an ADA claim, an em-\nployee must show: “(1) he is disabled; (2) he is otherwise qual-\nified to perform the essential functions of the job with or with-\nout reasonable accommodation; and (3) the adverse job action\nwas caused by his disability.” Roberts v. City of Chicago, 817\nF.3d 561, 565 (7th Cir. 2016).\n\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 7\n\n The ADA defines disability as: “(A) a physical or mental\nimpairment that substantially limits one or more major life ac-\ntivities of [an] individual; (B) a record of such an impairment;\nor (C) being regarded as having such an impairment.”\n42 U.S.C. § 12102(1). Richardson focuses his claim on the “re-\ngarded as” prong. To succeed, he must establish he was sub-\nject to a prohibited employment action “because of an actual\nor perceived physical or mental impairment whether or not\nthe impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life ac-\ntivity.” Id. § 12102(3)(A). At issue here, then, is whether Rich-\nardson can demonstrate either: (1) his extreme obesity is an\nactual impairment; or (2) CTA perceived his extreme obesity\nto be an impairment.\n 1. Actual Impairment\n Congress has not defined “impairment.” In a regulation\nimplementing the ADA, however, the EEOC defined “physi-\ncal impairment” as: “Any physiological disorder or condition,\ncosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or\nmore body systems, such as neurological, musculoskeletal,\nspecial sense organs, respiratory (including speech organs),\ncardiovascular, reproductive, digestive, genitourinary, im-\nmune, circulatory, hemic, lymphatic, skin, and endocrine.” 29\nC.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1). EEOC regulations interpreting the ADA\nare entitled to deference under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural\nResources Defense Council, Inc., unless they are “arbitrary, ca-\npricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.” 467 U.S. 837,\n844 (1984); see Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 130 F.3d 893, 899\nn.3 (10th Cir. 1997).\n Richardson and CTA disagree about whether his extreme\nobesity—even without evidence of an underlying physiolog-\nical condition—meets the definition of physical impairment\n\f8 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\n\nand is thus an actionable disability for ADA purposes. This is\nan issue of first impression for this Circuit. However, three of\nour sister circuits have considered the question; each has held,\nbased on the language of 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1), that obesity\nis an ADA impairment only if it is the result of an underlying\n“physiological disorder or condition.” See Morriss v. BNSF Ry.\nCo., 817 F.3d 1104, 1108–13 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 256\n(2016); EEOC v. Watkins Motor Lines, Inc., 463 F.3d 436, 441–43\n(6th Cir. 2006); Francis v. City of Meriden, 129 F.3d 281, 286–87\n(2d Cir. 1997).1 The majority of district courts have also ex-\npressed this view.2 In contrast, only a small number of district\ncourts have held extreme obesity is an ADA impairment even\nwithout evidence of a physiological cause. See, e.g., Velez v.\nCloghan Concepts, LLC, No. 18-cv-1901, 2019 WL 2423145, at *4\n(S.D. Cal. June 10, 2019); Velez v. II Fornanio (Am.) Corp., No.\n18-cv-1840, 2018 WL 6446169, at *2–4 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2018);\nMcCollum v. Livingston, No. 14-cv-3253, 2017 WL 608665, at\n\n 1 The Ninth Circuit has acknowledged that “the scope of ADA protec-\n\ntion for individuals suffering from obesity … presents an open question\nof federal law in this circuit,” but it has not had to resolve the issue. Taylor\nv. Burlington N. R.R. Holdings, Inc., 904 F.3d 846, 851–53 (9th Cir. 2018).\n 2 See, e.g., Sturgill v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., No. 18-cv-566, 2019 WL 1063374,\n\nat *3–4 (E.D. Va. Mar. 6, 2019); Shell v. Burlington N. Santa Fe Ry. Co., No.\n15-cv-11040, 2018 WL 1156249, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 5, 2018); Brownwood v.\nWells Trucking, LLC, No. 16-cv-01264, 2017 WL 9289453, at *6 (D. Colo.\nNov. 9, 2017); Silva v. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs for the Cty. of Roosevelt, No. 15-cv-\n1046, 2017 WL 4325769, at *7–8 (D.N.M. Sept. 26, 2017); Valtierra v. Med-\ntronic Inc., 232 F. Supp. 3d 1117, 1123–25 (D. Ariz. 2017); Revolinski v.\nAmtrak, No. 08-cv-1098, 2011 WL 2037015, at *11 (E.D. Wis. May 24, 2011);\nHayes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 781 F. Supp. 2d 1080, 1091 (D. Or. 2011); Ni\nv. Rite Aid of N.J., No. 10-cv-1522, 2010 WL 2557523, at *3 (D.N.J. June 22,\n2010); Hill v. Verizon Md., Inc., No. 07-cv-3123, 2009 WL 2060088, at *6 (D.\nMd. July 13, 2009).\n\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 9\n\n*35 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 3, 2017); EEOC v. Res. for Human Dev., Inc.,\n827 F. Supp. 2d 688, 693–95 (E.D. La. 2011); Lowe v. Am. Eu-\nrocopter, LLC, No. 10-cv-24, 2010 WL 5232523, at *7–8 (N.D.\nMiss. Dec. 16, 2010).3 We join the Second, Sixth, and Eighth\nCircuits. Without evidence that Richardson’s extreme obesity\nwas caused by a physiological disorder or condition, his obe-\nsity is not a physical impairment under the plain language of\nthe EEOC regulation.\n In his arguments to the contrary, Richardson focuses first\non the ADAAA. Congress passed these amendments in 2008\nto ensure that the ADA’s “definition of disability … be con-\nstrued in favor of broad coverage.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(4)(A).\nCongress emphasized “that the primary object of attention in\ncases brought under the ADA should be whether entities cov-\nered under the ADA have complied with their obligations,”\nwhile “the question of whether an individual’s impairment is\na disability under the ADA should not demand extensive\nanalysis.” ADAAA § 2(b)(5), 122 Stat. at 3554.\n Specifically, Congress sought to broaden the scope of the\n“being regarded as having such an impairment” definition of\ndisability. Id. § 2(b)(3); see Miller v. Ill. Dep’t of Transp., 643 F.3d\n190, 196 (7th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he ‘regarded as’ prong is an im-\nportant protection that should not be nullified by creating an\nimpossibly high standard of proof, as Congress indicated\neven more strongly in the 2008 amendments.”). It rejected the\nSupreme Court’s decision in Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc.,\n\n\n\n 3 The Montana Supreme Court reached a similar conclusion, discuss-\ning the ADA when interpreting the analogous Montana law. BNSF Ry. Co.\nv. Feit, 281 P.3d 225, 230–31 (Mont. 2012).\n\f10 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\n\n527 U.S. 471 (1999), which held that to be regarded as disa-\nbled, an employee’s disability must substantially limit a major\nlife activity. See id. at 490 (“An employer runs afoul of the\nADA when it makes an employment decision based on a\nphysical or mental impairment, real or imagined, that is re-\ngarded as substantially limiting a major life activity.”). There-\nfore, Congress amended the ADA to make clear an individual\ncan be “regarded as” having an impairment “whether or not\nthe impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life ac-\ntivity,” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(3)(A), and the EEOC adopted regu-\nlations to the same effect. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(2)\n(“Whether an individual’s impairment ‘substantially limits’ a\nmajor life activity is not relevant to coverage under … the ‘re-\ngarded as’ prong.”); id. § 1630.2(l)(1).\n Additionally, Congress relaxed court-imposed rules as to\nhow severe an impairment must be to be considered a disa-\nbility. It sought to abrogate the Supreme Court’s decisions in\nSutton and Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Wil-\nliams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002), because the Court’s definition of\n“substantially limits a major life activity” in those cases “cre-\nated an inappropriately high level of limitation necessary to\nobtain coverage under the ADA” by requiring that employees\nhave an impairment that “severely restrict[ed]” a major life\nactivity. ADAAA § 2(b)(2)–(5), 122 Stat. at 3554.4 It found that\n\n 4See Toyota, 534 U.S. at 197–98 (holding “substantially” and “major”\n“need to be interpreted strictly to create a demanding standard for quali-\nfying as disabled,” and therefore, to be disabled “an individual must have\nan impairment that prevents or severely restricts the individual from do-\ning activities that are of central importance to most people’s daily lives”);\nSutton, 527 U.S. at 482–83 (“A person whose physical or mental impair-\nment is corrected by medication or other measures does not have an im-\npairment that presently ‘substantially limits’ a major life activity.”).\n\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 11\n\nEEOC regulations “defining the term ‘substantially limits’ as\n‘significantly restricted’ [were] inconsistent with congres-\nsional intent[] by expressing too high a standard,” and ex-\npressed its “expectation” that the EEOC would revise its reg-\nulations. Id. § 2(a)(8), (b)(6). The EEOC adhered to this di-\nrective. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii) (“An impairment need\nnot prevent, or significantly or severely restrict, the individual\nfrom performing a major life activity in order to be considered\nsubstantially limiting.”); id. § 1630.2(i)(2) (“[T]he term ‘major’\nshall not be interpreted strictly to create a demanding stand-\nard for disability.”).\n Richardson contends that after the ADAAA, courts must\nbroadly construe impairment to encompass extreme obesity,\neven without evidence of an underlying physiological condi-\ntion. Cf. EEOC v. BNSF Ry. Co., 902 F.3d 916, 923 (9th Cir. 2018)\n(“impairment” should be interpreted “broadly” after the\nADAAA). We disagree. While Congress criticized the Su-\npreme Court’s understanding of “substantially limits a major\nlife activity” at length, it said nothing about judicial interpre-\ntation of impairment. See Morriss, 817 F.3d at 1111. Likewise,\nwhile Congress instructed the EEOC to alter its definitions of\n“substantially limits” and “major life activity,” it made no\nsuch instruction with respect to the EEOC’s definition of im-\npairment. See id. Indeed, the ADAAA’s legislative history ex-\nplicitly states that Congress “expect[ed] that the currently reg-\nulatory definition of [physical or mental impairment], as\npromulgated by agencies such as the [EEOC] … [would] not\nchange.” Statement of the Managers to Accompany S. 3406,\nThe Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of\n2008, 154 Cong. Rec. S8342-01, S8345 (Sept. 11, 2008). The\nEEOC therefore did not modify its regulation defining im-\n\f12 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\n\npairment, and even after the ADAAA, the definition of phys-\nical impairment remains inextricably tied to a “physiological\ndisorder or condition.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1); see Morriss,\n817 F.3d at 1111 (“The ADAAA’s general policy statement\ncannot trump this plain language.”).\n Next, Richardson insists that we must interpret the\nEEOC’s definition of physical impairment in light of EEOC\ninterpretive guidance. That guidance, which interprets both\nthe ADA and the EEOC regulation, states:\n It is important to distinguish between condi-\n tions that are impairments and physical, psy-\n chological, environmental, cultural, and eco-\n nomic characteristics that are not impairments.\n The definition of the term “impairment” does\n not include physical characteristics such as eye\n color, hair color, left-handedness, or height,\n weight, or muscle tone that are within “normal”\n range and are not the result of a physiological\n disorder.\n29 C.F.R. pt. 1630, app. § 1630.2(h). While EEOC interpretive\nguidance is “not entitled to full Chevron deference,” it does\n“reflect a body of experience and informed judgment to which\ncourts and litigants may properly resort for guidance” and is\ntherefore “entitled to a measure of respect under the less def-\nerential Skidmore [v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944)] stand-\nard.” Fed. Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389, 399 (2008)\n(citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see Gile v.\nUnited Airlines, Inc., 95 F.3d 492, 497 (7th Cir. 1996).\n According to Richardson, this EEOC guidance specifies\nthat “impairment does not include the physical characteristic\n\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 13\n\nof weight if both of the following elements are present: (1) the\nweight [is] within the normal range; and (2) the weight is not\nthe result of a physiological disorder.” The Montana Supreme\nCourt adopted this interpretation. BNSF Ry. Co. v. Feit, 281\nP.3d 225, 229 (Mont. 2012). So did at least three district courts.\nSee Velez, 2019 WL 2423145, at *4; Velez, 2018 WL 6446169, at\n*4; Res. for Human Dev., 827 F. Supp. 2d at 694. Removing the\nnegatives, Richardson posits that “[i]mpairment does include\nthe physical characteristic of weight if either of the following\nelements are true: (1) the weight is not within the normal\nrange; or (2) the weight is the result of a physiological disor-\nder.”\n Like the Eighth Circuit, we do not find this reading of the\ninterpretive guidance persuasive. Rather, “a more natural\nreading of the interpretive guidance is that an individual’s\nweight is generally a physical characteristic that qualifies as a\nphysical impairment only if it falls outside the normal range\nand it occurs as the result of a physiological disorder.” Morriss,\n817 F.3d at 1108. As the Eighth Circuit reasoned, “reading …\nthe EEOC interpretive guidance in its entirety supports this\nconclusion” because, for example, “the interpretive guidance\nalso provides that ‘[o]ther conditions, such as pregnancy, that\nare not the result of a physiological disorder are also not im-\npairments.’” Id. at 1108–09 (alteration in original) (quoting\n29 C.F.R. pt. 1630, app. § 1630.2(h)).\n Moreover, Richardson’s preferred interpretation is over-\nbroad. If we were to read the EEOC interpretive guidance in\nthe way he suggests, even an employee with normal weight\ncould claim a weight-based physical impairment if his weight\nwas the result of a physiological disorder. Likewise, any em-\nployee whose weight—or other physical characteristic—is\n\f14 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\n\neven slightly outside the “normal range” would have a phys-\nical impairment even with no underlying physiological cause.\nSuch results are inconsistent with the ADA’s text and purpose\nand must be rejected. Otherwise, “the ‘regarded as’ prong …\nwould become a catch-all cause of action for discrimination\nbased on appearance, size, and any number of other things far\nremoved from the reasons the [ADA] [was] passed.” Watkins,\n463 F.3d at 443 (quoting Francis, 129 F.3d at 287).\n In any event, even if this interpretive guidance means\nwhat Richardson says it means, we do not defer to EEOC\nguidance that is contrary to the text of the regulation it pur-\nports to interpret. See Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.,\n567 U.S. 142, 155 (2012) (“Deference is undoubtedly inappro-\npriate … when the agency’s interpretation is ‘plainly errone-\nous or inconsistent with the regulation.’” (quoting Auer v. Rob-\nbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461 (1997))). The EEOC defines physical im-\npairment as a “physiological disorder or condition.” 29 C.F.R.\n§ 1630.2(h)(1). It is directly contrary to that definition to con-\nsider a physical characteristic such as weight, even if outside\nthe “normal range,” a physical impairment absent evidence\nof an underlying physiological condition.5\n\n\n 5 Richardson also emphasizes the EEOC has consistently expressed its\n\nview that extreme obesity is a physical impairment. In a compliance man-\nual, the EEOC stated that while “[b]eing overweight, in and of itself, gen-\nerally is not an impairment …, severe obesity, which has been defined as\nbody weight more than 100% over the norm, is clearly an impairment.”\nEEOC Compliance Manual § 902.2(c)(5)(ii) (2012) (citations and footnotes\nomitted). The EEOC has also taken this position in litigation, both as plain-\ntiff and amicus. True, courts may generally defer to both EEOC policy\nstatements in a compliance manual and EEOC’s interpretation of its own\nregulation in legal briefs. Christopher, 567 U.S. at 155; Holowecki, 552 U.S. at\n399; see Bible v. United Student Aid Funds, Inc., 799 F.3d 633, 663 (7th Cir.\n\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 15\n\n Patient and scientific professional organizations, as amici\ncuriae, make a somewhat related, but distinct argument. They\ninsist that because both the medical community6 and federal\nand state policymakers7 understand obesity as a disease, obe-\nsity is in and of itself a physiological disorder and therefore a\n\n\n\n2015) (Flaum, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment) (“[I]t\nis generally appropriate to defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own\nregulations, even when that interpretation is informally announced.”).\nHere, however, neither the compliance manual nor EEOC’s litigation po-\nsition are entitled to our deference. For one, the EEOC removed this para-\ngraph from its compliance manual in 2012. See EEOC, Section 902 Defini-\ntion of the Term Disability (2012), https://www.eeoc.gov/pol-\nicy/docs/902cm.html. And more importantly, the EEOC’s position is in di-\nrect conflict with the regulation because it considers extreme obesity a\nphysical impairment even without evidence of an underlying physiologi-\ncal disorder or condition. See Morriss, 817 F.3d at 1111 n.4, 1112.\n 6 For example, the American Medical Association describes “obesity\nas a disease state with multiple pathophysiological aspects requiring a\nrange of interventions to advance obesity treatment and prevention.” Am.\nMed. Assoc. House of Delegates, Recognition of Obesity as a Disease (2013),\nhttps://www.npr.org/documents/2013/jun/ama-resolution-obesity.pdf.\nLikewise, the World Health Organization concluded “obesity should be\nconsidered a disease in its own right.” World Health Org., Obesity and\nOverweight (2003), http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/me-\ndia/en/gsfs_obesity.pdf. And the National Institutes of Health said “[o]be-\nsity is a complex, multifactorial chronic disease.” Nat’l Insts. of Health,\nClinical Guidelines on the Identification, Evaluation, and Treatment of Over-\nweight and Obesity in Adults, at xi (1998),\nhttps://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/files/docs/guidelines/ob_gdlns.pdf.\n 7 For instance, the Internal Revenue Service decided an individual\ncould deduct costs of a weight-loss program as a medical care expense\nbecause he had “a disease, obesity,” I.R.S. Rev. Rul. 2002-19, 2002 WL\n484628 (Apr. 2, 2002), and the Social Security Administration recognized\nobesity as “a complex, chronic disease characterized by excessive accumu-\n\f16 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\n\nphysical impairment within the definition of the ADA. This\nargument is not persuasive. The ADA is an antidiscrimina-\ntion—not a public health—statute, and Congress’s desires as\nit relates to the ADA do not necessarily align with those of the\nmedical community. Moreover, amici’s argument proves too\nmuch; if we agreed that obesity is itself a physiological disor-\nder, then all obesity would be an ADA impairment. While\nRichardson does not ask us to hold that all obese individu-\nals—found to be as high as 39.8% of the American adult pop-\nulation8—automatically have an ADA impairment, adopting\namici’s position leads to this unavoidable, nonrealistic result.\n At bottom, Richardson does not present any evidence sug-\ngesting an underlying physiological disorder or condition\ncaused his extreme obesity.9 Without such evidence, we can-\nnot call Richardson’s extreme obesity a physical impairment\n\n\n\nlation of body fat.” SSR 00-3p, 2000 WL 33952015 (May 15, 2000). Addi-\ntionally, in 2017, the Senate passed by unanimous consent a resolution in\nsupport of “National Obesity Care Week,” recognizing “the disease of\nobesity,” S. Res. 325, 115th Cong. (2017), and in 2018, the National Lieu-\ntenant Governors Association passed a resolution which called obesity “a\nchronic disease.” Nat’l Lieutenant Governors Ass’n, Resolution in Support\nof the Treatment and Prevention of Obesity (June 29, 2018),\nhttps://www.nlga.us/wp-content/uploads/2018-Resolution-in-Support-\nof-the-Prevention-and-Treatment-of-Obesity-2.pdf.\n 8 See U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., Prevalence of Obesity Among\n\nAdults and Youth: United States, 2015–2016 (Oct. 2017),\nhttps://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db288.pdf.\n 9True, Richardson’s pulmonologist submitted a declaration stating\nRichardson’s hypertension and sleep apnea were “related to” his obesity.\nHowever, there is nothing in the record suggesting Richardson’s hyper-\ntension or sleep apnea caused his obesity.\n\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 17\n\nwithin the meaning of the ADA and the EEOC regulation. See\nMorriss, 817 F.3d at 1112; Watkins, 463 F.3d at 443.10\n 2. Perceived Impairment\n Alternatively, Richardson argues that even if we hold ex-\ntreme obesity is not itself an impairment, he is still disabled\nunder the ADA because CTA perceived his obesity to be a\nphysical impairment. See 42 U.S.C. § 12102(3)(A). To succeed\non this claim, Richardson must show CTA took adverse action\nagainst him based on the belief that his condition was an im-\npairment—as the ADA defines that term—not merely based\non knowledge of Richardson’s physical characteristic. See\nMorriss, 817 F.3d at 1113 (“[A]s a threshold matter, [the em-\nployee] was required to show that [the employer] perceived\nhis obesity to be a condition that met the definition of ‘physi-\ncal impairment.’”); Francis, 129 F.3d at 285 (“[T]he plaintiff\nmust allege that the employer believed, however erroneously,\n\n\n 10 Richardson also suggests the fact that he “suffered from extreme\nobesity … alone is sufficient … to establish that he meets the definition of\n‘disability’ under the ADA.” Cf. Watkins, 463 F.3d at 443–45 & n.1 (Gib-\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Mark Richardson v. CTA\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-06-12\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: Yes\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\nMARK RICHARDSON,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nCHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY,\\n Defendant-Appellee.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeals from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 16-cv-03027 — John Robert Blakey, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED MAY 14, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 12, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before FLAUM, KANNE, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\\n FLAUM, Circuit Judge. Mark Richardson, a former Chicago\\nTransit Authority (“CTA”) bus operator, alleged CTA took ad-\\nverse action against him because of his extreme obesity in vi-\\nolation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990\\n(“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101–12213, as amended by the ADA\\nAmendments Act of 2008 (“ADAAA”), Pub. L. No. 110-325,\\n122 Stat. 3553. The district court disagreed. It held extreme\\nobesity only qualifies as a disability under the ADA if it is\\n\\f2 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\n\\ncaused by an underlying physiological disorder or condition,\\nand granted CTA’s motion for summary judgment because\\nRichardson offered no such evidence. Richardson appeals this\\nholding, as well as the district court’s decision to tax costs\\nagainst him. We affirm.\\n I. Background\\n Mark Richardson began working for CTA in 1993 as a tem-\\nporary bus operator, and he worked as a full-time operator\\nfrom August 1999 until February 2012. According to a CTA\\ndoctor, Richardson weighed 350 pounds in January 2005. And\\nanother CTA doctor indicated Richardson weighed 566\\npounds in May 2009. Based on his Body Mass Index (a stand-\\nardized weight-to-height ratio used to determine whether an\\nindividual is underweight, within the normal weight range,\\noverweight, or obese) Richardson has “extreme” obesity\\nwhenever he weighs over 315 pounds. He also suffers from\\nhypertension and sleep apnea.\\n Beginning in early February 2010, Richardson was absent\\nfrom work because he had the flu. He attempted to return to\\nwork on February 19, but Advanced Occupational Medicine\\nServices (“AOMS”)—CTA’s third-party medical provider—\\ndocumented that Richardson had uncontrolled hypertension\\nand influenza, weighed over 400 pounds, and could not re-\\nturn to work until he controlled his blood pressure. For that\\nreason, on April 9, CTA’s Disability Review Committee trans-\\nferred Richardson to Temporary Medical Disability–Area 605\\n(“Area 605”). CTA administrative procedures define Area 605\\nas a “budgetary assignment for eligible union employees who\\nhave been found medically unfit to perform the essential\\nfunctions of their job classification due to an illness or injury.”\\n\\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 3\\n\\n On September 13, 2010, AOMS examined Richardson’s fit-\\nness to return to work. It found Richardson “physically fit to\\nwork as a bus operator,” but indicated Richardson “must be\\ncleared by safety prior to operating [a] bus.” CTA requires\\nAOMS to report if a bus operator returning from extended\\nleave weighs over 400 pounds because CTA bus seats are not\\ndesigned to accommodate drivers weighing over 400 pounds.\\nWeighing over this maximum does not, however, automati-\\ncally disqualify employees from working as bus operators.\\nCTA permits such employees to operate buses if the safety de-\\npartment finds they can safely perform their job. To make this\\ndetermination, CTA administers a “special assessment,” a\\ndriving performance test used to determine whether bus op-\\nerators can perform all standard operating procedures on six\\ntypes of CTA buses.\\n On September 16, 2010, Richardson completed a special\\nassessment. CTA’s Acting Manager of Bus Instruction, Marie\\nStewart, assigned Bus Instructors John Durnell and Elon\\nMcElroy to administer the test. During the assessment, Dur-\\nnell and McElroy joked about Richardson’s weight. Durnell\\ntestified he was just trying “to lighten up the situation,” and\\nasserted that in response, Richardson “started laughing and\\nhe started to relax.” Nevertheless, McElroy reported Durnell’s\\ncomments to Stewart, and Stewart reprimanded Durnell for\\nunprofessionalism.\\n Following the assessment, Durnell and McElroy each com-\\npleted a report. While Durnell concluded Richardson “can\\ndrive all of CTA’s buses in a safe and trusted manner,” both\\ninstructors noted several safety concerns: Richardson cross-\\npedaled, meaning his foot was on the gas and brake at the\\nsame time; Richardson was unable to make hand-over-hand\\n\\f4 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\n\\nturns; Richardson’s leg rested close to the door handle; Rich-\\nardson could not see the floor of the bus from his seat; part of\\nRichardson’s body hung off the driver’s seat; and the seat de-\\nflated when Richardson sat. Additionally, both instructors\\nnoted Richardson wore a seatbelt extender, wrote that Rich-\\nardson was “sweating heavily” and needed to lean onto the\\nbus for balance, and Durnell commented on a “hygiene prob-\\nlem.” At his deposition, McElroy testified that as a “former\\nheart patient,” he was worried Richardson’s “sweating\\n[could] lead to an episode.”\\n Stewart drafted a memorandum to CTA’s Vice President\\nof Bus Operations, Earl Swopes, concluding that “[b]ased on\\nthe Bus Instructors[’] observations and findings, the limited\\nspace in the driver’s area and the manufacturer requirements,\\nit would be unsafe for Bus Operator Richardson to operate\\nany CTA bus at this time.” She specifically referenced the\\nsafety concerns listed above. Moreover, Stewart wrote that\\n“[t]he maximum allowable weight per the manufacturer re-\\nquirements for CTA buses is 400 pounds,” and “[i]t has been\\nrepresented that Operator Richardson is over that weight\\nmaximum.” Because Richardson failed the assessment and\\ncould not adhere to all CTA operating procedures, Swopes\\ndetermined that Richardson could not safely operate CTA\\nbuses. Swopes testified he based this decision solely on Stew-\\nart’s memorandum, without any independent investigation.\\n Instead of immediately terminating Richardson’s employ-\\nment, CTA proposed a written agreement: CTA would trans-\\nfer Richardson back to Area 605 so he could work with doc-\\ntors to lose weight and be subject to periodic monitoring; in\\nexchange, Richardson would release his ability to bring vari-\\nous causes of action. Richardson refused. In March 2011, CTA\\n\\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 5\\n\\nnonetheless transferred Richardson to Area 605; the accompa-\\nnying form provides as a rationale that Richardson “exceeded\\nthe weight requirement to operate the bus.” In October 2011,\\nCTA informed Richardson that he was approaching two years\\nof inactive status, and per CTA policy, he could extend his\\ntime in Area 605 by one year by submitting medical documen-\\ntation. Richardson did not submit documentation, and in Feb-\\nruary 2012, CTA terminated his employment.\\n On December 15, 2015, the Equal Employment Oppor-\\ntunity Commission (“EEOC”) issued Richardson a right-to-\\nsue letter, and on March 10, 2016, Richardson brought the op-\\nerative complaint against CTA, alleging it violated the ADA\\nby “refus[ing] to allow [him] to return to work because it re-\\ngarded him as being too obese to work as a bus operator.” On\\nOctober 17, 2016, the district court denied CTA’s motion to\\ndismiss, ruling that “[e]ven if [Richardson] is ultimately re-\\nquired to prove that his obesity was caused by a physiological\\ndisorder, he is not required to allege the same.” On April 20,\\n2017, Richardson and CTA filed cross-motions for summary\\njudgment, and on November 13, 2017, the district court de-\\nnied Richardson’s motion and granted CTA’s motion. It held,\\nbased on the language of the ADA and the pertinent EEOC\\nregulation and interpretive guidance, that “to qualify as a pro-\\ntected physical impairment, claimants under the ADA must\\nshow that their severe obesity is caused by an underlying\\nphysiological disorder or condition.” Because Richardson\\npresented no such evidence, the district court entered judg-\\nment in CTA’s favor.\\n On December 7, 2017, CTA filed its bill of costs, seeking to\\nrecover $7,333.56 in deposition and copying costs as the pre-\\nvailing party pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\\n\\f6 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\n\\n54(d)(1). Richardson argued costs should not be taxed because\\nof his inability to pay, or alternatively, CTA’s costs should be\\nreduced because transcript delivery fees are not recoverable\\nand the transcript costs CTA sought were over the rate al-\\nlowed by local rules. On May 1, 2018, the district court issued\\na minute order taxing $2,067.26 in costs. It denied copying\\ncosts because the documents were available on the electronic\\ndocket, and it reduced deposition transcript costs.\\n Richardson separately appealed the district court’s grant\\nof CTA’s motion for summary judgment and decision to tax\\ncosts. We consolidated the appeals for resolution.\\n II. Discussion\\n A. The ADA and Obesity\\n We review cross-motions for summary judgment de novo,\\n“construing all facts and drawing all reasonable inferences in\\nfavor of the party against whom the motion under considera-\\ntion was filed.” Hess v. Bd. of Trs. of S. Ill. Univ., 839 F.3d 668,\\n673 (7th Cir. 2016). Here, we consider only CTA’s motion for\\nsummary judgment, so we draw all facts in favor of Richard-\\nson. Summary judgment is proper “where there are no genu-\\nine issues of material fact and the movant is entitled to judg-\\nment as a matter of law.” Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)).\\n The ADA prohibits employers from “discriminat[ing]\\nagainst a qualified individual on the basis of disability.”\\n42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). To succeed on an ADA claim, an em-\\nployee must show: “(1) he is disabled; (2) he is otherwise qual-\\nified to perform the essential functions of the job with or with-\\nout reasonable accommodation; and (3) the adverse job action\\nwas caused by his disability.” Roberts v. City of Chicago, 817\\nF.3d 561, 565 (7th Cir. 2016).\\n\\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 7\\n\\n The ADA defines disability as: “(A) a physical or mental\\nimpairment that substantially limits one or more major life ac-\\ntivities of [an] individual; (B) a record of such an impairment;\\nor (C) being regarded as having such an impairment.”\\n42 U.S.C. § 12102(1). Richardson focuses his claim on the “re-\\ngarded as” prong. To succeed, he must establish he was sub-\\nject to a prohibited employment action “because of an actual\\nor perceived physical or mental impairment whether or not\\nthe impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life ac-\\ntivity.” Id. § 12102(3)(A). At issue here, then, is whether Rich-\\nardson can demonstrate either: (1) his extreme obesity is an\\nactual impairment; or (2) CTA perceived his extreme obesity\\nto be an impairment.\\n 1. Actual Impairment\\n Congress has not defined “impairment.” In a regulation\\nimplementing the ADA, however, the EEOC defined “physi-\\ncal impairment” as: “Any physiological disorder or condition,\\ncosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or\\nmore body systems, such as neurological, musculoskeletal,\\nspecial sense organs, respiratory (including speech organs),\\ncardiovascular, reproductive, digestive, genitourinary, im-\\nmune, circulatory, hemic, lymphatic, skin, and endocrine.” 29\\nC.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1). EEOC regulations interpreting the ADA\\nare entitled to deference under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural\\nResources Defense Council, Inc., unless they are “arbitrary, ca-\\npricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.” 467 U.S. 837,\\n844 (1984); see Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 130 F.3d 893, 899\\nn.3 (10th Cir. 1997).\\n Richardson and CTA disagree about whether his extreme\\nobesity—even without evidence of an underlying physiolog-\\nical condition—meets the definition of physical impairment\\n\\f8 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\n\\nand is thus an actionable disability for ADA purposes. This is\\nan issue of first impression for this Circuit. However, three of\\nour sister circuits have considered the question; each has held,\\nbased on the language of 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1), that obesity\\nis an ADA impairment only if it is the result of an underlying\\n“physiological disorder or condition.” See Morriss v. BNSF Ry.\\nCo., 817 F.3d 1104, 1108–13 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 256\\n(2016); EEOC v. Watkins Motor Lines, Inc., 463 F.3d 436, 441–43\\n(6th Cir. 2006); Francis v. City of Meriden, 129 F.3d 281, 286–87\\n(2d Cir. 1997).1 The majority of district courts have also ex-\\npressed this view.2 In contrast, only a small number of district\\ncourts have held extreme obesity is an ADA impairment even\\nwithout evidence of a physiological cause. See, e.g., Velez v.\\nCloghan Concepts, LLC, No. 18-cv-1901, 2019 WL 2423145, at *4\\n(S.D. Cal. June 10, 2019); Velez v. II Fornanio (Am.) Corp., No.\\n18-cv-1840, 2018 WL 6446169, at *2–4 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2018);\\nMcCollum v. Livingston, No. 14-cv-3253, 2017 WL 608665, at\\n\\n 1 The Ninth Circuit has acknowledged that “the scope of ADA protec-\\n\\ntion for individuals suffering from obesity … presents an open question\\nof federal law in this circuit,” but it has not had to resolve the issue. Taylor\\nv. Burlington N. R.R. Holdings, Inc., 904 F.3d 846, 851–53 (9th Cir. 2018).\\n 2 See, e.g., Sturgill v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., No. 18-cv-566, 2019 WL 1063374,\\n\\nat *3–4 (E.D. Va. Mar. 6, 2019); Shell v. Burlington N. Santa Fe Ry. Co., No.\\n15-cv-11040, 2018 WL 1156249, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 5, 2018); Brownwood v.\\nWells Trucking, LLC, No. 16-cv-01264, 2017 WL 9289453, at *6 (D. Colo.\\nNov. 9, 2017); Silva v. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs for the Cty. of Roosevelt, No. 15-cv-\\n1046, 2017 WL 4325769, at *7–8 (D.N.M. Sept. 26, 2017); Valtierra v. Med-\\ntronic Inc., 232 F. Supp. 3d 1117, 1123–25 (D. Ariz. 2017); Revolinski v.\\nAmtrak, No. 08-cv-1098, 2011 WL 2037015, at *11 (E.D. Wis. May 24, 2011);\\nHayes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 781 F. Supp. 2d 1080, 1091 (D. Or. 2011); Ni\\nv. Rite Aid of N.J., No. 10-cv-1522, 2010 WL 2557523, at *3 (D.N.J. June 22,\\n2010); Hill v. Verizon Md., Inc., No. 07-cv-3123, 2009 WL 2060088, at *6 (D.\\nMd. July 13, 2009).\\n\\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 9\\n\\n*35 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 3, 2017); EEOC v. Res. for Human Dev., Inc.,\\n827 F. Supp. 2d 688, 693–95 (E.D. La. 2011); Lowe v. Am. Eu-\\nrocopter, LLC, No. 10-cv-24, 2010 WL 5232523, at *7–8 (N.D.\\nMiss. Dec. 16, 2010).3 We join the Second, Sixth, and Eighth\\nCircuits. Without evidence that Richardson’s extreme obesity\\nwas caused by a physiological disorder or condition, his obe-\\nsity is not a physical impairment under the plain language of\\nthe EEOC regulation.\\n In his arguments to the contrary, Richardson focuses first\\non the ADAAA. Congress passed these amendments in 2008\\nto ensure that the ADA’s “definition of disability … be con-\\nstrued in favor of broad coverage.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(4)(A).\\nCongress emphasized “that the primary object of attention in\\ncases brought under the ADA should be whether entities cov-\\nered under the ADA have complied with their obligations,”\\nwhile “the question of whether an individual’s impairment is\\na disability under the ADA should not demand extensive\\nanalysis.” ADAAA § 2(b)(5), 122 Stat. at 3554.\\n Specifically, Congress sought to broaden the scope of the\\n“being regarded as having such an impairment” definition of\\ndisability. Id. § 2(b)(3); see Miller v. Ill. Dep’t of Transp., 643 F.3d\\n190, 196 (7th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he ‘regarded as’ prong is an im-\\nportant protection that should not be nullified by creating an\\nimpossibly high standard of proof, as Congress indicated\\neven more strongly in the 2008 amendments.”). It rejected the\\nSupreme Court’s decision in Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc.,\\n\\n\\n\\n 3 The Montana Supreme Court reached a similar conclusion, discuss-\\ning the ADA when interpreting the analogous Montana law. BNSF Ry. Co.\\nv. Feit, 281 P.3d 225, 230–31 (Mont. 2012).\\n\\f10 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\n\\n527 U.S. 471 (1999), which held that to be regarded as disa-\\nbled, an employee’s disability must substantially limit a major\\nlife activity. See id. at 490 (“An employer runs afoul of the\\nADA when it makes an employment decision based on a\\nphysical or mental impairment, real or imagined, that is re-\\ngarded as substantially limiting a major life activity.”). There-\\nfore, Congress amended the ADA to make clear an individual\\ncan be “regarded as” having an impairment “whether or not\\nthe impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life ac-\\ntivity,” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(3)(A), and the EEOC adopted regu-\\nlations to the same effect. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(2)\\n(“Whether an individual’s impairment ‘substantially limits’ a\\nmajor life activity is not relevant to coverage under … the ‘re-\\ngarded as’ prong.”); id. § 1630.2(l)(1).\\n Additionally, Congress relaxed court-imposed rules as to\\nhow severe an impairment must be to be considered a disa-\\nbility. It sought to abrogate the Supreme Court’s decisions in\\nSutton and Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Wil-\\nliams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002), because the Court’s definition of\\n“substantially limits a major life activity” in those cases “cre-\\nated an inappropriately high level of limitation necessary to\\nobtain coverage under the ADA” by requiring that employees\\nhave an impairment that “severely restrict[ed]” a major life\\nactivity. ADAAA § 2(b)(2)–(5), 122 Stat. at 3554.4 It found that\\n\\n 4See Toyota, 534 U.S. at 197–98 (holding “substantially” and “major”\\n“need to be interpreted strictly to create a demanding standard for quali-\\nfying as disabled,” and therefore, to be disabled “an individual must have\\nan impairment that prevents or severely restricts the individual from do-\\ning activities that are of central importance to most people’s daily lives”);\\nSutton, 527 U.S. at 482–83 (“A person whose physical or mental impair-\\nment is corrected by medication or other measures does not have an im-\\npairment that presently ‘substantially limits’ a major life activity.”).\\n\\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 11\\n\\nEEOC regulations “defining the term ‘substantially limits’ as\\n‘significantly restricted’ [were] inconsistent with congres-\\nsional intent[] by expressing too high a standard,” and ex-\\npressed its “expectation” that the EEOC would revise its reg-\\nulations. Id. § 2(a)(8), (b)(6). The EEOC adhered to this di-\\nrective. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii) (“An impairment need\\nnot prevent, or significantly or severely restrict, the individual\\nfrom performing a major life activity in order to be considered\\nsubstantially limiting.”); id. § 1630.2(i)(2) (“[T]he term ‘major’\\nshall not be interpreted strictly to create a demanding stand-\\nard for disability.”).\\n Richardson contends that after the ADAAA, courts must\\nbroadly construe impairment to encompass extreme obesity,\\neven without evidence of an underlying physiological condi-\\ntion. Cf. EEOC v. BNSF Ry. Co., 902 F.3d 916, 923 (9th Cir. 2018)\\n(“impairment” should be interpreted “broadly” after the\\nADAAA). We disagree. While Congress criticized the Su-\\npreme Court’s understanding of “substantially limits a major\\nlife activity” at length, it said nothing about judicial interpre-\\ntation of impairment. See Morriss, 817 F.3d at 1111. Likewise,\\nwhile Congress instructed the EEOC to alter its definitions of\\n“substantially limits” and “major life activity,” it made no\\nsuch instruction with respect to the EEOC’s definition of im-\\npairment. See id. Indeed, the ADAAA’s legislative history ex-\\nplicitly states that Congress “expect[ed] that the currently reg-\\nulatory definition of [physical or mental impairment], as\\npromulgated by agencies such as the [EEOC] … [would] not\\nchange.” Statement of the Managers to Accompany S. 3406,\\nThe Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of\\n2008, 154 Cong. Rec. S8342-01, S8345 (Sept. 11, 2008). The\\nEEOC therefore did not modify its regulation defining im-\\n\\f12 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\n\\npairment, and even after the ADAAA, the definition of phys-\\nical impairment remains inextricably tied to a “physiological\\ndisorder or condition.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1); see Morriss,\\n817 F.3d at 1111 (“The ADAAA’s general policy statement\\ncannot trump this plain language.”).\\n Next, Richardson insists that we must interpret the\\nEEOC’s definition of physical impairment in light of EEOC\\ninterpretive guidance. That guidance, which interprets both\\nthe ADA and the EEOC regulation, states:\\n It is important to distinguish between condi-\\n tions that are impairments and physical, psy-\\n chological, environmental, cultural, and eco-\\n nomic characteristics that are not impairments.\\n The definition of the term “impairment” does\\n not include physical characteristics such as eye\\n color, hair color, left-handedness, or height,\\n weight, or muscle tone that are within “normal”\\n range and are not the result of a physiological\\n disorder.\\n29 C.F.R. pt. 1630, app. § 1630.2(h). While EEOC interpretive\\nguidance is “not entitled to full Chevron deference,” it does\\n“reflect a body of experience and informed judgment to which\\ncourts and litigants may properly resort for guidance” and is\\ntherefore “entitled to a measure of respect under the less def-\\nerential Skidmore [v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944)] stand-\\nard.” Fed. Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389, 399 (2008)\\n(citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see Gile v.\\nUnited Airlines, Inc., 95 F.3d 492, 497 (7th Cir. 1996).\\n According to Richardson, this EEOC guidance specifies\\nthat “impairment does not include the physical characteristic\\n\\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 13\\n\\nof weight if both of the following elements are present: (1) the\\nweight [is] within the normal range; and (2) the weight is not\\nthe result of a physiological disorder.” The Montana Supreme\\nCourt adopted this interpretation. BNSF Ry. Co. v. Feit, 281\\nP.3d 225, 229 (Mont. 2012). So did at least three district courts.\\nSee Velez, 2019 WL 2423145, at *4; Velez, 2018 WL 6446169, at\\n*4; Res. for Human Dev., 827 F. Supp. 2d at 694. Removing the\\nnegatives, Richardson posits that “[i]mpairment does include\\nthe physical characteristic of weight if either of the following\\nelements are true: (1) the weight is not within the normal\\nrange; or (2) the weight is the result of a physiological disor-\\nder.”\\n Like the Eighth Circuit, we do not find this reading of the\\ninterpretive guidance persuasive. Rather, “a more natural\\nreading of the interpretive guidance is that an individual’s\\nweight is generally a physical characteristic that qualifies as a\\nphysical impairment only if it falls outside the normal range\\nand it occurs as the result of a physiological disorder.” Morriss,\\n817 F.3d at 1108. As the Eighth Circuit reasoned, “reading …\\nthe EEOC interpretive guidance in its entirety supports this\\nconclusion” because, for example, “the interpretive guidance\\nalso provides that ‘[o]ther conditions, such as pregnancy, that\\nare not the result of a physiological disorder are also not im-\\npairments.’” Id. at 1108–09 (alteration in original) (quoting\\n29 C.F.R. pt. 1630, app. § 1630.2(h)).\\n Moreover, Richardson’s preferred interpretation is over-\\nbroad. If we were to read the EEOC interpretive guidance in\\nthe way he suggests, even an employee with normal weight\\ncould claim a weight-based physical impairment if his weight\\nwas the result of a physiological disorder. Likewise, any em-\\nployee whose weight—or other physical characteristic—is\\n\\f14 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\n\\neven slightly outside the “normal range” would have a phys-\\nical impairment even with no underlying physiological cause.\\nSuch results are inconsistent with the ADA’s text and purpose\\nand must be rejected. Otherwise, “the ‘regarded as’ prong …\\nwould become a catch-all cause of action for discrimination\\nbased on appearance, size, and any number of other things far\\nremoved from the reasons the [ADA] [was] passed.” Watkins,\\n463 F.3d at 443 (quoting Francis, 129 F.3d at 287).\\n In any event, even if this interpretive guidance means\\nwhat Richardson says it means, we do not defer to EEOC\\nguidance that is contrary to the text of the regulation it pur-\\nports to interpret. See Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.,\\n567 U.S. 142, 155 (2012) (“Deference is undoubtedly inappro-\\npriate … when the agency’s interpretation is ‘plainly errone-\\nous or inconsistent with the regulation.’” (quoting Auer v. Rob-\\nbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461 (1997))). The EEOC defines physical im-\\npairment as a “physiological disorder or condition.” 29 C.F.R.\\n§ 1630.2(h)(1). It is directly contrary to that definition to con-\\nsider a physical characteristic such as weight, even if outside\\nthe “normal range,” a physical impairment absent evidence\\nof an underlying physiological condition.5\\n\\n\\n 5 Richardson also emphasizes the EEOC has consistently expressed its\\n\\nview that extreme obesity is a physical impairment. In a compliance man-\\nual, the EEOC stated that while “[b]eing overweight, in and of itself, gen-\\nerally is not an impairment …, severe obesity, which has been defined as\\nbody weight more than 100% over the norm, is clearly an impairment.”\\nEEOC Compliance Manual § 902.2(c)(5)(ii) (2012) (citations and footnotes\\nomitted). The EEOC has also taken this position in litigation, both as plain-\\ntiff and amicus. True, courts may generally defer to both EEOC policy\\nstatements in a compliance manual and EEOC’s interpretation of its own\\nregulation in legal briefs. Christopher, 567 U.S. at 155; Holowecki, 552 U.S. at\\n399; see Bible v. United Student Aid Funds, Inc., 799 F.3d 633, 663 (7th Cir.\\n\\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 15\\n\\n Patient and scientific professional organizations, as amici\\ncuriae, make a somewhat related, but distinct argument. They\\ninsist that because both the medical community6 and federal\\nand state policymakers7 understand obesity as a disease, obe-\\nsity is in and of itself a physiological disorder and therefore a\\n\\n\\n\\n2015) (Flaum, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment) (“[I]t\\nis generally appropriate to defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own\\nregulations, even when that interpretation is informally announced.”).\\nHere, however, neither the compliance manual nor EEOC’s litigation po-\\nsition are entitled to our deference. For one, the EEOC removed this para-\\ngraph from its compliance manual in 2012. See EEOC, Section 902 Defini-\\ntion of the Term Disability (2012), https://www.eeoc.gov/pol-\\nicy/docs/902cm.html. And more importantly, the EEOC’s position is in di-\\nrect conflict with the regulation because it considers extreme obesity a\\nphysical impairment even without evidence of an underlying physiologi-\\ncal disorder or condition. See Morriss, 817 F.3d at 1111 n.4, 1112.\\n 6 For example, the American Medical Association describes “obesity\\nas a disease state with multiple pathophysiological aspects requiring a\\nrange of interventions to advance obesity treatment and prevention.” Am.\\nMed. Assoc. House of Delegates, Recognition of Obesity as a Disease (2013),\\nhttps://www.npr.org/documents/2013/jun/ama-resolution-obesity.pdf.\\nLikewise, the World Health Organization concluded “obesity should be\\nconsidered a disease in its own right.” World Health Org., Obesity and\\nOverweight (2003), http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/me-\\ndia/en/gsfs_obesity.pdf. And the National Institutes of Health said “[o]be-\\nsity is a complex, multifactorial chronic disease.” Nat’l Insts. of Health,\\nClinical Guidelines on the Identification, Evaluation, and Treatment of Over-\\nweight and Obesity in Adults, at xi (1998),\\nhttps://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/files/docs/guidelines/ob_gdlns.pdf.\\n 7 For instance, the Internal Revenue Service decided an individual\\ncould deduct costs of a weight-loss program as a medical care expense\\nbecause he had “a disease, obesity,” I.R.S. Rev. Rul. 2002-19, 2002 WL\\n484628 (Apr. 2, 2002), and the Social Security Administration recognized\\nobesity as “a complex, chronic disease characterized by excessive accumu-\\n\\f16 Nos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\\n\\nphysical impairment within the definition of the ADA. This\\nargument is not persuasive. The ADA is an antidiscrimina-\\ntion—not a public health—statute, and Congress’s desires as\\nit relates to the ADA do not necessarily align with those of the\\nmedical community. Moreover, amici’s argument proves too\\nmuch; if we agreed that obesity is itself a physiological disor-\\nder, then all obesity would be an ADA impairment. While\\nRichardson does not ask us to hold that all obese individu-\\nals—found to be as high as 39.8% of the American adult pop-\\nulation8—automatically have an ADA impairment, adopting\\namici’s position leads to this unavoidable, nonrealistic result.\\n At bottom, Richardson does not present any evidence sug-\\ngesting an underlying physiological disorder or condition\\ncaused his extreme obesity.9 Without such evidence, we can-\\nnot call Richardson’s extreme obesity a physical impairment\\n\\n\\n\\nlation of body fat.” SSR 00-3p, 2000 WL 33952015 (May 15, 2000). Addi-\\ntionally, in 2017, the Senate passed by unanimous consent a resolution in\\nsupport of “National Obesity Care Week,” recognizing “the disease of\\nobesity,” S. Res. 325, 115th Cong. (2017), and in 2018, the National Lieu-\\ntenant Governors Association passed a resolution which called obesity “a\\nchronic disease.” Nat’l Lieutenant Governors Ass’n, Resolution in Support\\nof the Treatment and Prevention of Obesity (June 29, 2018),\\nhttps://www.nlga.us/wp-content/uploads/2018-Resolution-in-Support-\\nof-the-Prevention-and-Treatment-of-Obesity-2.pdf.\\n 8 See U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., Prevalence of Obesity Among\\n\\nAdults and Youth: United States, 2015–2016 (Oct. 2017),\\nhttps://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db288.pdf.\\n 9True, Richardson’s pulmonologist submitted a declaration stating\\nRichardson’s hypertension and sleep apnea were “related to” his obesity.\\nHowever, there is nothing in the record suggesting Richardson’s hyper-\\ntension or sleep apnea caused his obesity.\\n\\fNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199 17\\n\\nwithin the meaning of the ADA and the EEOC regulation. See\\nMorriss, 817 F.3d at 1112; Watkins, 463 F.3d at 443.10\\n 2. Perceived Impairment\\n Alternatively, Richardson argues that even if we hold ex-\\ntreme obesity is not itself an impairment, he is still disabled\\nunder the ADA because CTA perceived his obesity to be a\\nphysical impairment. See 42 U.S.C. § 12102(3)(A). To succeed\\non this claim, Richardson must show CTA took adverse action\\nagainst him based on the belief that his condition was an im-\\npairment—as the ADA defines that term—not merely based\\non knowledge of Richardson’s physical characteristic. See\\nMorriss, 817 F.3d at 1113 (“[A]s a threshold matter, [the em-\\nployee] was required to show that [the employer] perceived\\nhis obesity to be a condition that met the definition of ‘physi-\\ncal impairment.’”); Francis, 129 F.3d at 285 (“[T]he plaintiff\\nmust allege that the employer believed, however erroneously,\\n\\n\\n 10 Richardson also suggests the fact that he “suffered from extreme\\nobesity … alone is sufficient … to establish that he meets the definition of\\n‘disability’ under the ADA.” Cf. Watkins, 463 F.3d at 443–45 & n.1 (Gib-\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2578,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4629266,"string":"4,629,266"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"James A. MOLLET, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF GREENFIELD, Defendant-Appellee."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"James Mollet v. City of Greenfield"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-06-13"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-3685"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Bauer, Manion, Brennan\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"William Joseph Bauer\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\nNo. 18-3685\\n\\nJAMES A. MOLLET,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n\\n v.\\n\\n\\nCITY OF GREENFIELD,\\n Defendant-Appellee.\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Eastern District of Wisconsin.\\n No. 2:16-cv-01145-LA — Lynn Adelman, Judge.\\n\\n\\n\\n ARGUED MAY 23, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 12, 2019\\n\\n\\n Before BAUER, MANION, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\\n BAUER, Circuit Judge. In this case we must decide whether\\nJames Mollet’s complaint about a racially charged incident was\\nthe but-for cause of his constructive discharge. For the reasons\\nbelow, we answer in the negative and affirm the decision of the\\ndistrict court.\\n\\f2 No. 18-3685\\n\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n James Mollet began working as a firefighter for the Green-\\nfield Fire Department in 1995. The Greenfield Fire Department\\nhad three eight-hour shifts each day and one battalion chief\\nsupervised each. Mollet rose through the ranks of the fire\\ndepartment and became a battalion chief in 2009.\\n In November 2011, John Cohn was appointed chief of the\\ndepartment and George Weber assistant chief. Mollet and\\nCohn were friendly before he was appointed chief, but\\nfollowing the appointment phone calls and text messages\\nbetween the two ceased. The relationship was further strained\\nbecause Mollet felt Cohn’s actions as chief were inconsistent\\nwith the vision for the department Mollet and Cohn discussed\\nprior to Cohn’s promotion.\\n With that we move to the incident that underpins the\\ntheory of Mollet’s case. At the end of each shift firefighters\\nstow their gear and bedding and when one fails to do so, other\\nfirefighters sometimes prank the offender. On February 17,\\n2012, firefighter Cesar Hernandez forgot to stow some of his\\ngear. The firefighters in the following shift hung the items from\\nthe ceiling and posted a paper sign with a Mexican flag printed\\non it with the words “Border Patrol” written beneath it.\\nHernandez did not file a complaint after the incident, but\\nanother firefighter who found the incident discriminatory\\nreported it to her superior officer, who reported the incident to\\nMollet.\\n Mollet emailed Cohn and Weber later that evening and\\ninformed them of the incident. Weber replied:\\n\\fNo. 18-3685 3\\n\\n Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I\\n agree with you 100% that this crosses the line of\\n firehouse hazing. Could you do some investigat-\\n ing into this incident and report any findings\\n back to me. This type of behavior should not\\n and will not be tolerated. Please let me know\\n what you find out.\\nMollet indicated he would rather not investigate the incident\\nhimself, but Cohn emailed that Mollet should investigate\\nbecause Cohn did not want to hand the issue over to those\\nunder whose watch it may have occurred.\\n An individual eventually took responsibility for the\\nincident and four individuals were disciplined—one lost a day\\nof vacation and three received verbal reprimands.\\n In the following months Cohn and Weber were critical of\\nMollet’s performance. In March 2012, a month after the\\nincident, Cohn and Weber criticized Mollet’s performance in\\nchecking off probationary firefighters on certain tasks. On\\nApril 12, 2012, Weber sent an email critical of Mollet’s leader-\\nship skills. The following day, Weber informed Mollet that he\\nwould be taking over the lead on rapid intervention team\\ntraining. Mollet was later removed from his position oversee-\\ning the firefighter internship program after a former intern\\nimproperly listed the fire department as a former employer.\\n On August 10, 2012, Cohn and Weber met with Mollet,\\ncriticized his communication skills, and asserted that he had\\nbeen critical of Weber and Cohn with his fellow firefighters.\\nOn August 31, 2012, Cohn criticized Mollet for issuing com-\\nmendation letters to public works employees without notifying\\n\\f4 No. 18-3685\\n\\nhim. In November 2012, Cohn criticized Mollet because an\\nEMT he had trained failed to notify the police of a patient’s\\ninjuries when it appeared they were the result of domestic\\nviolence. Cohn also criticized Mollet’s leadership and told him\\nin a meeting on November 15 that he needed to change. He\\nalso informed Mollet that it may be too late for him to change\\nand that he might be demoted or reassigned.\\n The following month, Mollet applied for a position in\\nMenomonee Falls. He indicated in his application that he\\ndesired an opportunity to take on challenges their fire depart-\\nment presented with its unique structure and potential\\nupgrade of its emergency medical services to the paramedic\\nlevel. Mollet received a conditional offer of employment from\\nMenomonee Falls on February 4, 2013. On February 8, Mollet\\nmet with Cohn and Weber and they indicated that he would be\\ndemoted if he did not take the position in Menomonee Falls.\\n On February 19, 2013, Mollet told Weber he was going to\\naccept the offer from Menomonee Falls which was contingent\\nupon his passing a physical and psychological exam. Mollet\\nreceived a letter from Cohn accepting Mollet’s resignation;\\nMollet responded stating he would not resign until the\\ncontingencies of his future employment were met, but on\\nFebruary 28 Cohn responded that Mollet’s employment had\\nterminated on February 24. Mollet was ultimately placed on\\npaid leave until he submitted his letter of resignation on\\nMarch 23, 2013, and began his employment with Menomonee\\nFalls on March 25.\\n Mollet filed a complaint in federal court on August 25, 2016,\\nalleging he was retaliated against for opposing discrimination\\n\\fNo. 18-3685 5\\n\\nin the workplace. The gravamen of the complaint is that Mollet\\nwas treated poorly and forced to resign as retaliation for\\ncomplaining about the Hernandez incident. The defendants\\nmoved for summary judgment and the district court referred\\nthe case to a magistrate judge for a report and recommenda-\\ntion. The magistrate judge recommended the motion be\\ngranted and the decision was adopted in toto by the district\\ncourt. The court found summary judgment was appropriate\\nbecause no reasonable trier of fact could find that reporting the\\nHernandez incident was the but-for cause of his constructive\\ndischarge. Because we agree, we affirm.\\n II. DISCUSSION\\n Summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no\\ngenuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is\\nentitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).\\nWe review a district court’s grant of summary judgment\\nde novo and construe all facts and draw all reasonable infer-\\nences in favor of the nonmoving party. Levitin v. Nw. Cmty.\\nHosp., 923 F.3d 499 (7th Cir. 2019).\\n Title VII prohibits employers from retaliating against\\nemployees for complaining about discrimination. 42 U.S.C.\\n§ 2000e-3(a). Mollet argues that the Greenfield Fire Department\\nretaliated against him for complaining about the discrimina-\\ntory incident involving Hernandez. To establish a prima facie\\ncase of retaliation under Title VII, Mollet must show: (1) he\\nengaged in a statutorily protected activity, (2) his employer\\ntook a materially adverse action against him, and (3) there is a\\ncausal link between the protected activity and the adverse\\naction. Robinson v. Perales, 894 F.3d 818, 830 (7th Cir. 2018). The\\n\\f6 No. 18-3685\\n\\ndistrict court found that Mollet carried his burden on the first\\ntwo elements, but failed to provide evidence that would lead\\na reasonable jury to find a causal connection. Because we\\nagree, we will address only the issue of causation.\\n Mollet asserts the conditions at the fire department rapidly\\ndeteriorated after he complained about the Hernandez\\nincident. In Mollet’s opinion, this shows complaining was a\\nbut-for cause of his constructive discharge, implying that\\nseveral but-for causes may contribute to an adverse employ-\\nment action. In crafting this argument, Mollet misconstrues the\\nSupreme Court’s holding in University of Texas Southwestern\\nMedical Center v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338, 362 (2013), as well as a\\nfootnote from this Court’s opinion in Carlson v. CSX Transporta-\\ntion Inc., 758 F.3d 819, 828 n.1 (7th Cir. 2014).\\n In Nassar, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that the\\ncausation requirement in Title VII retaliation claims merely\\nrequires that plaintiffs show the protected activity was a\\n“motivating factor” in a decision to retaliate against the\\nemployee. 570 U.S. at 354. The Court cited Gross v. FBL\\nFinancial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (2009), which held similar\\nlanguage in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act\\nwarranted a finding of but-for causation. Id. at 350 (citing\\nGross, 557 U.S. at 176). The Court noted that Gross held that “an\\nemployer took adverse action because of age meant that age\\nwas the reason that the employer decided to act, or, in other\\nwords, that age was the but-for cause of the employer’s\\ndecision.” Id. (emphasis added and internal quotation marks\\nomitted). The dissent pointed out that “[w]hen more than one\\nfactor contributes to a plaintiff’s injury, but-for causation is\\nproblematic” because there can only be one but-for cause of an\\n\\fNo. 18-3685 7\\n\\naction. Id. at 384. (Ginsburg, J., dissenting). “When an event is\\n‘overdetermined,’ i.e., when two forces create an injury each\\nalone would be sufficient to cause, modern tort law permits the\\nplaintiff to prevail upon showing that either sufficient condi-\\ntion created the harm.” Id. (Ginsburg, J., dissenting) (citing\\nRestatement (Third) of Torts § 27, at 376–77). The Nassar\\nmajority did not imagine a regime where plaintiff could merely\\nestablish a but-for cause: “the proper conclusion here … is that\\nTitle VII retaliation claims require proof that the desire to\\nretaliate was the but-for cause of the challenged employment\\naction.” Id. at 352 (emphasis added).\\n Our opinion in Carlson is not contrary. In Carlson, we\\nmerely explained that factors other than the protected activity\\ncould contribute to bringing about an adverse action, but a\\nplaintiff still must prove the protected activity was the but-for\\ncause of the adverse action—that “the adverse action would\\nnot have happened without the activity.” 758 F.3d 819, 828 n.1\\n(7th Cir. 2014). Thus, the question in this case is not, as the\\nplaintiffs put it, whether Mollet complaining about the Her-\\nnandez incident was a but-for cause of the adverse action,\\nrather whether the protected activity was the but-for cause of\\nthe adverse action. Heath v. Indianapolis Fire Dep’t, 889 F.3d\\n872, 874 (7th Cir. 2018). In other words, would Mollet have\\nnot been constructively discharged if he did not complain\\nabout the Hernandez incident. Robinson, 894 F.3d at 834.\\n Mollet acknowledged during his deposition that he was\\nmiserable at work once Cohn became chief in November 2011,\\nthree months before the Hernandez incident occurred. As\\nnoted above, communication ceased between Cohn and Mollet\\nshortly after Cohn became chief and before the Hernandez\\n\\f8 No. 18-3685\\n\\nincident. Additionally, Mollet was told by members of his\\nbattalion that management was monitoring his performance\\nbefore the Hernandez incident. Cohn’s criticism also began\\nbefore the Hernandez incident—he called out Mollet for failing\\nto renew his EMT license.\\n As the district court noted, there is also evidence in the\\nrecord that Cohn and Weber both responded promptly and\\npositively to Mollet’s complaint about the Hernandez incident\\nand agreed that the conduct was unacceptable. Cohn and\\nWeber disciplined four individuals after the investigation was\\ncomplete. Mollet argues that Cohn and Weber were actually\\nfrustrated that Mollet complained about the incident and their\\nresponse, insistence on an investigation, and eventual disci-\\npline of several firefighters was pretextual. In support of this\\nargument Mollet cites evidence in the record that indicates\\nWeber knew of the incident before Mollet reported it. This,\\nMollet argues, shows that Weber and Cohn planned to do\\nnothing until Mollet complained. But there is no evidence in\\nthe record that Cohn or Weber disagreed with Mollet or\\nconsidered the issue unworthy of investigation. Nor is there\\nevidence that Cohn or Weber were displeased that Mollet\\nbrought the issue to their attention. The mere fact that they\\nmay have known about the incident before Mollet complained\\nis not evidence that the entire investigation and discipline was\\npretextual. See Boss v. Castro, 816 F.3d 910, 917 (7th Cir. 2016)\\n(holding that “circumstantial evidence must point directly to\\na discriminatory reason for the employer’s action “ and “a\\nplaintiff’s subjective beliefs are insufficient to create a genuine\\nissue of material fact”). A reasonable jury could not conclude\\nas much without engaging in speculation.\\n\\fNo. 18-3685 9\\n\\n Mollet also argues the timing of Cohn and Weber’s criticism\\nwas suspicious because it began less than a month after the\\nHernandez incident and continued through his constructive\\ndischarge nearly a year later. But these events have little in\\ncommon other than the fact that they occurred after the\\nHernandez incident. There is nothing that connects them to the\\nHernandez incident and no evidence indicating that the\\ncomplaints about Mollet were related to any goal other than\\nimproving his job performance. Without more, this evidence\\nprovides little support for Mollet’s causation argument. Gracia\\nv. SigmaTron International, Inc., 842 F.3d 1010, 1021 (7th Cir.\\n2016) (noting that “suspicious timing alone is rarely enough to\\ncreate an inference of retaliatory motive”).\\n Thus, there is no evidence presented by the plaintiff that\\ncould cause a reasonable juror to find that but-for Mollet\\ncomplaining about the Hernandez incident, Cohn and Weber\\nwould not have criticized Mollet for these potential deficien-\\ncies in his performance. Furthermore, there is substantial\\nevidence that Mollet’s relationship with Weber and Cohn was\\nstrained and Cohn had demonstrated a skepticism regarding\\nthe sufficiency of Mollet’s performance before the Hernandez\\nincident occurred. Because a reasonable jury could not find the\\ncausation required in a Title VII retaliation case based on the\\nevidence in the record, we affirm the district court.\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n Considering all of the above, we affirm the district court’s\\ndecision to grant summary judgment in favor of defendant.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4406519/\", \"author_raw\": \"William Joseph Bauer\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"BAUER"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"MANION"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"BRENNAN"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4629266/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":6,"string":"6"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: James A. MOLLET, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF GREENFIELD, Defendant-Appellee.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-06-13\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\nNo. 18-3685\n\nJAMES A. MOLLET,\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\n\n v.\n\n\nCITY OF GREENFIELD,\n Defendant-Appellee.\n\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Eastern District of Wisconsin.\n No. 2:16-cv-01145-LA — Lynn Adelman, Judge.\n\n\n\n ARGUED MAY 23, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 12, 2019\n\n\n Before BAUER, MANION, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\n BAUER, Circuit Judge. In this case we must decide whether\nJames Mollet’s complaint about a racially charged incident was\nthe but-for cause of his constructive discharge. For the reasons\nbelow, we answer in the negative and affirm the decision of the\ndistrict court.\n\f2 No. 18-3685\n\n I. BACKGROUND\n James Mollet began working as a firefighter for the Green-\nfield Fire Department in 1995. The Greenfield Fire Department\nhad three eight-hour shifts each day and one battalion chief\nsupervised each. Mollet rose through the ranks of the fire\ndepartment and became a battalion chief in 2009.\n In November 2011, John Cohn was appointed chief of the\ndepartment and George Weber assistant chief. Mollet and\nCohn were friendly before he was appointed chief, but\nfollowing the appointment phone calls and text messages\nbetween the two ceased. The relationship was further strained\nbecause Mollet felt Cohn’s actions as chief were inconsistent\nwith the vision for the department Mollet and Cohn discussed\nprior to Cohn’s promotion.\n With that we move to the incident that underpins the\ntheory of Mollet’s case. At the end of each shift firefighters\nstow their gear and bedding and when one fails to do so, other\nfirefighters sometimes prank the offender. On February 17,\n2012, firefighter Cesar Hernandez forgot to stow some of his\ngear. The firefighters in the following shift hung the items from\nthe ceiling and posted a paper sign with a Mexican flag printed\non it with the words “Border Patrol” written beneath it.\nHernandez did not file a complaint after the incident, but\nanother firefighter who found the incident discriminatory\nreported it to her superior officer, who reported the incident to\nMollet.\n Mollet emailed Cohn and Weber later that evening and\ninformed them of the incident. Weber replied:\n\fNo. 18-3685 3\n\n Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I\n agree with you 100% that this crosses the line of\n firehouse hazing. Could you do some investigat-\n ing into this incident and report any findings\n back to me. This type of behavior should not\n and will not be tolerated. Please let me know\n what you find out.\nMollet indicated he would rather not investigate the incident\nhimself, but Cohn emailed that Mollet should investigate\nbecause Cohn did not want to hand the issue over to those\nunder whose watch it may have occurred.\n An individual eventually took responsibility for the\nincident and four individuals were disciplined—one lost a day\nof vacation and three received verbal reprimands.\n In the following months Cohn and Weber were critical of\nMollet’s performance. In March 2012, a month after the\nincident, Cohn and Weber criticized Mollet’s performance in\nchecking off probationary firefighters on certain tasks. On\nApril 12, 2012, Weber sent an email critical of Mollet’s leader-\nship skills. The following day, Weber informed Mollet that he\nwould be taking over the lead on rapid intervention team\ntraining. Mollet was later removed from his position oversee-\ning the firefighter internship program after a former intern\nimproperly listed the fire department as a former employer.\n On August 10, 2012, Cohn and Weber met with Mollet,\ncriticized his communication skills, and asserted that he had\nbeen critical of Weber and Cohn with his fellow firefighters.\nOn August 31, 2012, Cohn criticized Mollet for issuing com-\nmendation letters to public works employees without notifying\n\f4 No. 18-3685\n\nhim. In November 2012, Cohn criticized Mollet because an\nEMT he had trained failed to notify the police of a patient’s\ninjuries when it appeared they were the result of domestic\nviolence. Cohn also criticized Mollet’s leadership and told him\nin a meeting on November 15 that he needed to change. He\nalso informed Mollet that it may be too late for him to change\nand that he might be demoted or reassigned.\n The following month, Mollet applied for a position in\nMenomonee Falls. He indicated in his application that he\ndesired an opportunity to take on challenges their fire depart-\nment presented with its unique structure and potential\nupgrade of its emergency medical services to the paramedic\nlevel. Mollet received a conditional offer of employment from\nMenomonee Falls on February 4, 2013. On February 8, Mollet\nmet with Cohn and Weber and they indicated that he would be\ndemoted if he did not take the position in Menomonee Falls.\n On February 19, 2013, Mollet told Weber he was going to\naccept the offer from Menomonee Falls which was contingent\nupon his passing a physical and psychological exam. Mollet\nreceived a letter from Cohn accepting Mollet’s resignation;\nMollet responded stating he would not resign until the\ncontingencies of his future employment were met, but on\nFebruary 28 Cohn responded that Mollet’s employment had\nterminated on February 24. Mollet was ultimately placed on\npaid leave until he submitted his letter of resignation on\nMarch 23, 2013, and began his employment with Menomonee\nFalls on March 25.\n Mollet filed a complaint in federal court on August 25, 2016,\nalleging he was retaliated against for opposing discrimination\n\fNo. 18-3685 5\n\nin the workplace. The gravamen of the complaint is that Mollet\nwas treated poorly and forced to resign as retaliation for\ncomplaining about the Hernandez incident. The defendants\nmoved for summary judgment and the district court referred\nthe case to a magistrate judge for a report and recommenda-\ntion. The magistrate judge recommended the motion be\ngranted and the decision was adopted in toto by the district\ncourt. The court found summary judgment was appropriate\nbecause no reasonable trier of fact could find that reporting the\nHernandez incident was the but-for cause of his constructive\ndischarge. Because we agree, we affirm.\n II. DISCUSSION\n Summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no\ngenuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is\nentitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).\nWe review a district court’s grant of summary judgment\nde novo and construe all facts and draw all reasonable infer-\nences in favor of the nonmoving party. Levitin v. Nw. Cmty.\nHosp., 923 F.3d 499 (7th Cir. 2019).\n Title VII prohibits employers from retaliating against\nemployees for complaining about discrimination. 42 U.S.C.\n§ 2000e-3(a). Mollet argues that the Greenfield Fire Department\nretaliated against him for complaining about the discrimina-\ntory incident involving Hernandez. To establish a prima facie\ncase of retaliation under Title VII, Mollet must show: (1) he\nengaged in a statutorily protected activity, (2) his employer\ntook a materially adverse action against him, and (3) there is a\ncausal link between the protected activity and the adverse\naction. Robinson v. Perales, 894 F.3d 818, 830 (7th Cir. 2018). The\n\f6 No. 18-3685\n\ndistrict court found that Mollet carried his burden on the first\ntwo elements, but failed to provide evidence that would lead\na reasonable jury to find a causal connection. Because we\nagree, we will address only the issue of causation.\n Mollet asserts the conditions at the fire department rapidly\ndeteriorated after he complained about the Hernandez\nincident. In Mollet’s opinion, this shows complaining was a\nbut-for cause of his constructive discharge, implying that\nseveral but-for causes may contribute to an adverse employ-\nment action. In crafting this argument, Mollet misconstrues the\nSupreme Court’s holding in University of Texas Southwestern\nMedical Center v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338, 362 (2013), as well as a\nfootnote from this Court’s opinion in Carlson v. CSX Transporta-\ntion Inc., 758 F.3d 819, 828 n.1 (7th Cir. 2014).\n In Nassar, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that the\ncausation requirement in Title VII retaliation claims merely\nrequires that plaintiffs show the protected activity was a\n“motivating factor” in a decision to retaliate against the\nemployee. 570 U.S. at 354. The Court cited Gross v. FBL\nFinancial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (2009), which held similar\nlanguage in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act\nwarranted a finding of but-for causation. Id. at 350 (citing\nGross, 557 U.S. at 176). The Court noted that Gross held that “an\nemployer took adverse action because of age meant that age\nwas the reason that the employer decided to act, or, in other\nwords, that age was the but-for cause of the employer’s\ndecision.” Id. (emphasis added and internal quotation marks\nomitted). The dissent pointed out that “[w]hen more than one\nfactor contributes to a plaintiff’s injury, but-for causation is\nproblematic” because there can only be one but-for cause of an\n\fNo. 18-3685 7\n\naction. Id. at 384. (Ginsburg, J., dissenting). “When an event is\n‘overdetermined,’ i.e., when two forces create an injury each\nalone would be sufficient to cause, modern tort law permits the\nplaintiff to prevail upon showing that either sufficient condi-\ntion created the harm.” Id. (Ginsburg, J., dissenting) (citing\nRestatement (Third) of Torts § 27, at 376–77). The Nassar\nmajority did not imagine a regime where plaintiff could merely\nestablish a but-for cause: “the proper conclusion here … is that\nTitle VII retaliation claims require proof that the desire to\nretaliate was the but-for cause of the challenged employment\naction.” Id. at 352 (emphasis added).\n Our opinion in Carlson is not contrary. In Carlson, we\nmerely explained that factors other than the protected activity\ncould contribute to bringing about an adverse action, but a\nplaintiff still must prove the protected activity was the but-for\ncause of the adverse action—that “the adverse action would\nnot have happened without the activity.” 758 F.3d 819, 828 n.1\n(7th Cir. 2014). Thus, the question in this case is not, as the\nplaintiffs put it, whether Mollet complaining about the Her-\nnandez incident was a but-for cause of the adverse action,\nrather whether the protected activity was the but-for cause of\nthe adverse action. Heath v. Indianapolis Fire Dep’t, 889 F.3d\n872, 874 (7th Cir. 2018). In other words, would Mollet have\nnot been constructively discharged if he did not complain\nabout the Hernandez incident. Robinson, 894 F.3d at 834.\n Mollet acknowledged during his deposition that he was\nmiserable at work once Cohn became chief in November 2011,\nthree months before the Hernandez incident occurred. As\nnoted above, communication ceased between Cohn and Mollet\nshortly after Cohn became chief and before the Hernandez\n\f8 No. 18-3685\n\nincident. Additionally, Mollet was told by members of his\nbattalion that management was monitoring his performance\nbefore the Hernandez incident. Cohn’s criticism also began\nbefore the Hernandez incident—he called out Mollet for failing\nto renew his EMT license.\n As the district court noted, there is also evidence in the\nrecord that Cohn and Weber both responded promptly and\npositively to Mollet’s complaint about the Hernandez incident\nand agreed that the conduct was unacceptable. Cohn and\nWeber disciplined four individuals after the investigation was\ncomplete. Mollet argues that Cohn and Weber were actually\nfrustrated that Mollet complained about the incident and their\nresponse, insistence on an investigation, and eventual disci-\npline of several firefighters was pretextual. In support of this\nargument Mollet cites evidence in the record that indicates\nWeber knew of the incident before Mollet reported it. This,\nMollet argues, shows that Weber and Cohn planned to do\nnothing until Mollet complained. But there is no evidence in\nthe record that Cohn or Weber disagreed with Mollet or\nconsidered the issue unworthy of investigation. Nor is there\nevidence that Cohn or Weber were displeased that Mollet\nbrought the issue to their attention. The mere fact that they\nmay have known about the incident before Mollet complained\nis not evidence that the entire investigation and discipline was\npretextual. See Boss v. Castro, 816 F.3d 910, 917 (7th Cir. 2016)\n(holding that “circumstantial evidence must point directly to\na discriminatory reason for the employer’s action “ and “a\nplaintiff’s subjective beliefs are insufficient to create a genuine\nissue of material fact”). A reasonable jury could not conclude\nas much without engaging in speculation.\n\fNo. 18-3685 9\n\n Mollet also argues the timing of Cohn and Weber’s criticism\nwas suspicious because it began less than a month after the\nHernandez incident and continued through his constructive\ndischarge nearly a year later. But these events have little in\ncommon other than the fact that they occurred after the\nHernandez incident. There is nothing that connects them to the\nHernandez incident and no evidence indicating that the\ncomplaints about Mollet were related to any goal other than\nimproving his job performance. Without more, this evidence\nprovides little support for Mollet’s causation argument. Gracia\nv. SigmaTron International, Inc., 842 F.3d 1010, 1021 (7th Cir.\n2016) (noting that “suspicious timing alone is rarely enough to\ncreate an inference of retaliatory motive”).\n Thus, there is no evidence presented by the plaintiff that\ncould cause a reasonable juror to find that but-for Mollet\ncomplaining about the Hernandez incident, Cohn and Weber\nwould not have criticized Mollet for these potential deficien-\ncies in his performance. Furthermore, there is substantial\nevidence that Mollet’s relationship with Weber and Cohn was\nstrained and Cohn had demonstrated a skepticism regarding\nthe sufficiency of Mollet’s performance before the Hernandez\nincident occurred. Because a reasonable jury could not find the\ncausation required in a Title VII retaliation case based on the\nevidence in the record, we affirm the district court.\n III. CONCLUSION\n Considering all of the above, we affirm the district court’s\ndecision to grant summary judgment in favor of defendant.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: James A. MOLLET, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF GREENFIELD, Defendant-Appellee.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-06-13\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\nNo. 18-3685\\n\\nJAMES A. MOLLET,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n\\n v.\\n\\n\\nCITY OF GREENFIELD,\\n Defendant-Appellee.\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Eastern District of Wisconsin.\\n No. 2:16-cv-01145-LA — Lynn Adelman, Judge.\\n\\n\\n\\n ARGUED MAY 23, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 12, 2019\\n\\n\\n Before BAUER, MANION, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\\n BAUER, Circuit Judge. In this case we must decide whether\\nJames Mollet’s complaint about a racially charged incident was\\nthe but-for cause of his constructive discharge. For the reasons\\nbelow, we answer in the negative and affirm the decision of the\\ndistrict court.\\n\\f2 No. 18-3685\\n\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n James Mollet began working as a firefighter for the Green-\\nfield Fire Department in 1995. The Greenfield Fire Department\\nhad three eight-hour shifts each day and one battalion chief\\nsupervised each. Mollet rose through the ranks of the fire\\ndepartment and became a battalion chief in 2009.\\n In November 2011, John Cohn was appointed chief of the\\ndepartment and George Weber assistant chief. Mollet and\\nCohn were friendly before he was appointed chief, but\\nfollowing the appointment phone calls and text messages\\nbetween the two ceased. The relationship was further strained\\nbecause Mollet felt Cohn’s actions as chief were inconsistent\\nwith the vision for the department Mollet and Cohn discussed\\nprior to Cohn’s promotion.\\n With that we move to the incident that underpins the\\ntheory of Mollet’s case. At the end of each shift firefighters\\nstow their gear and bedding and when one fails to do so, other\\nfirefighters sometimes prank the offender. On February 17,\\n2012, firefighter Cesar Hernandez forgot to stow some of his\\ngear. The firefighters in the following shift hung the items from\\nthe ceiling and posted a paper sign with a Mexican flag printed\\non it with the words “Border Patrol” written beneath it.\\nHernandez did not file a complaint after the incident, but\\nanother firefighter who found the incident discriminatory\\nreported it to her superior officer, who reported the incident to\\nMollet.\\n Mollet emailed Cohn and Weber later that evening and\\ninformed them of the incident. Weber replied:\\n\\fNo. 18-3685 3\\n\\n Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I\\n agree with you 100% that this crosses the line of\\n firehouse hazing. Could you do some investigat-\\n ing into this incident and report any findings\\n back to me. This type of behavior should not\\n and will not be tolerated. Please let me know\\n what you find out.\\nMollet indicated he would rather not investigate the incident\\nhimself, but Cohn emailed that Mollet should investigate\\nbecause Cohn did not want to hand the issue over to those\\nunder whose watch it may have occurred.\\n An individual eventually took responsibility for the\\nincident and four individuals were disciplined—one lost a day\\nof vacation and three received verbal reprimands.\\n In the following months Cohn and Weber were critical of\\nMollet’s performance. In March 2012, a month after the\\nincident, Cohn and Weber criticized Mollet’s performance in\\nchecking off probationary firefighters on certain tasks. On\\nApril 12, 2012, Weber sent an email critical of Mollet’s leader-\\nship skills. The following day, Weber informed Mollet that he\\nwould be taking over the lead on rapid intervention team\\ntraining. Mollet was later removed from his position oversee-\\ning the firefighter internship program after a former intern\\nimproperly listed the fire department as a former employer.\\n On August 10, 2012, Cohn and Weber met with Mollet,\\ncriticized his communication skills, and asserted that he had\\nbeen critical of Weber and Cohn with his fellow firefighters.\\nOn August 31, 2012, Cohn criticized Mollet for issuing com-\\nmendation letters to public works employees without notifying\\n\\f4 No. 18-3685\\n\\nhim. In November 2012, Cohn criticized Mollet because an\\nEMT he had trained failed to notify the police of a patient’s\\ninjuries when it appeared they were the result of domestic\\nviolence. Cohn also criticized Mollet’s leadership and told him\\nin a meeting on November 15 that he needed to change. He\\nalso informed Mollet that it may be too late for him to change\\nand that he might be demoted or reassigned.\\n The following month, Mollet applied for a position in\\nMenomonee Falls. He indicated in his application that he\\ndesired an opportunity to take on challenges their fire depart-\\nment presented with its unique structure and potential\\nupgrade of its emergency medical services to the paramedic\\nlevel. Mollet received a conditional offer of employment from\\nMenomonee Falls on February 4, 2013. On February 8, Mollet\\nmet with Cohn and Weber and they indicated that he would be\\ndemoted if he did not take the position in Menomonee Falls.\\n On February 19, 2013, Mollet told Weber he was going to\\naccept the offer from Menomonee Falls which was contingent\\nupon his passing a physical and psychological exam. Mollet\\nreceived a letter from Cohn accepting Mollet’s resignation;\\nMollet responded stating he would not resign until the\\ncontingencies of his future employment were met, but on\\nFebruary 28 Cohn responded that Mollet’s employment had\\nterminated on February 24. Mollet was ultimately placed on\\npaid leave until he submitted his letter of resignation on\\nMarch 23, 2013, and began his employment with Menomonee\\nFalls on March 25.\\n Mollet filed a complaint in federal court on August 25, 2016,\\nalleging he was retaliated against for opposing discrimination\\n\\fNo. 18-3685 5\\n\\nin the workplace. The gravamen of the complaint is that Mollet\\nwas treated poorly and forced to resign as retaliation for\\ncomplaining about the Hernandez incident. The defendants\\nmoved for summary judgment and the district court referred\\nthe case to a magistrate judge for a report and recommenda-\\ntion. The magistrate judge recommended the motion be\\ngranted and the decision was adopted in toto by the district\\ncourt. The court found summary judgment was appropriate\\nbecause no reasonable trier of fact could find that reporting the\\nHernandez incident was the but-for cause of his constructive\\ndischarge. Because we agree, we affirm.\\n II. DISCUSSION\\n Summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no\\ngenuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is\\nentitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).\\nWe review a district court’s grant of summary judgment\\nde novo and construe all facts and draw all reasonable infer-\\nences in favor of the nonmoving party. Levitin v. Nw. Cmty.\\nHosp., 923 F.3d 499 (7th Cir. 2019).\\n Title VII prohibits employers from retaliating against\\nemployees for complaining about discrimination. 42 U.S.C.\\n§ 2000e-3(a). Mollet argues that the Greenfield Fire Department\\nretaliated against him for complaining about the discrimina-\\ntory incident involving Hernandez. To establish a prima facie\\ncase of retaliation under Title VII, Mollet must show: (1) he\\nengaged in a statutorily protected activity, (2) his employer\\ntook a materially adverse action against him, and (3) there is a\\ncausal link between the protected activity and the adverse\\naction. Robinson v. Perales, 894 F.3d 818, 830 (7th Cir. 2018). The\\n\\f6 No. 18-3685\\n\\ndistrict court found that Mollet carried his burden on the first\\ntwo elements, but failed to provide evidence that would lead\\na reasonable jury to find a causal connection. Because we\\nagree, we will address only the issue of causation.\\n Mollet asserts the conditions at the fire department rapidly\\ndeteriorated after he complained about the Hernandez\\nincident. In Mollet’s opinion, this shows complaining was a\\nbut-for cause of his constructive discharge, implying that\\nseveral but-for causes may contribute to an adverse employ-\\nment action. In crafting this argument, Mollet misconstrues the\\nSupreme Court’s holding in University of Texas Southwestern\\nMedical Center v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338, 362 (2013), as well as a\\nfootnote from this Court’s opinion in Carlson v. CSX Transporta-\\ntion Inc., 758 F.3d 819, 828 n.1 (7th Cir. 2014).\\n In Nassar, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that the\\ncausation requirement in Title VII retaliation claims merely\\nrequires that plaintiffs show the protected activity was a\\n“motivating factor” in a decision to retaliate against the\\nemployee. 570 U.S. at 354. The Court cited Gross v. FBL\\nFinancial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (2009), which held similar\\nlanguage in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act\\nwarranted a finding of but-for causation. Id. at 350 (citing\\nGross, 557 U.S. at 176). The Court noted that Gross held that “an\\nemployer took adverse action because of age meant that age\\nwas the reason that the employer decided to act, or, in other\\nwords, that age was the but-for cause of the employer’s\\ndecision.” Id. (emphasis added and internal quotation marks\\nomitted). The dissent pointed out that “[w]hen more than one\\nfactor contributes to a plaintiff’s injury, but-for causation is\\nproblematic” because there can only be one but-for cause of an\\n\\fNo. 18-3685 7\\n\\naction. Id. at 384. (Ginsburg, J., dissenting). “When an event is\\n‘overdetermined,’ i.e., when two forces create an injury each\\nalone would be sufficient to cause, modern tort law permits the\\nplaintiff to prevail upon showing that either sufficient condi-\\ntion created the harm.” Id. (Ginsburg, J., dissenting) (citing\\nRestatement (Third) of Torts § 27, at 376–77). The Nassar\\nmajority did not imagine a regime where plaintiff could merely\\nestablish a but-for cause: “the proper conclusion here … is that\\nTitle VII retaliation claims require proof that the desire to\\nretaliate was the but-for cause of the challenged employment\\naction.” Id. at 352 (emphasis added).\\n Our opinion in Carlson is not contrary. In Carlson, we\\nmerely explained that factors other than the protected activity\\ncould contribute to bringing about an adverse action, but a\\nplaintiff still must prove the protected activity was the but-for\\ncause of the adverse action—that “the adverse action would\\nnot have happened without the activity.” 758 F.3d 819, 828 n.1\\n(7th Cir. 2014). Thus, the question in this case is not, as the\\nplaintiffs put it, whether Mollet complaining about the Her-\\nnandez incident was a but-for cause of the adverse action,\\nrather whether the protected activity was the but-for cause of\\nthe adverse action. Heath v. Indianapolis Fire Dep’t, 889 F.3d\\n872, 874 (7th Cir. 2018). In other words, would Mollet have\\nnot been constructively discharged if he did not complain\\nabout the Hernandez incident. Robinson, 894 F.3d at 834.\\n Mollet acknowledged during his deposition that he was\\nmiserable at work once Cohn became chief in November 2011,\\nthree months before the Hernandez incident occurred. As\\nnoted above, communication ceased between Cohn and Mollet\\nshortly after Cohn became chief and before the Hernandez\\n\\f8 No. 18-3685\\n\\nincident. Additionally, Mollet was told by members of his\\nbattalion that management was monitoring his performance\\nbefore the Hernandez incident. Cohn’s criticism also began\\nbefore the Hernandez incident—he called out Mollet for failing\\nto renew his EMT license.\\n As the district court noted, there is also evidence in the\\nrecord that Cohn and Weber both responded promptly and\\npositively to Mollet’s complaint about the Hernandez incident\\nand agreed that the conduct was unacceptable. Cohn and\\nWeber disciplined four individuals after the investigation was\\ncomplete. Mollet argues that Cohn and Weber were actually\\nfrustrated that Mollet complained about the incident and their\\nresponse, insistence on an investigation, and eventual disci-\\npline of several firefighters was pretextual. In support of this\\nargument Mollet cites evidence in the record that indicates\\nWeber knew of the incident before Mollet reported it. This,\\nMollet argues, shows that Weber and Cohn planned to do\\nnothing until Mollet complained. But there is no evidence in\\nthe record that Cohn or Weber disagreed with Mollet or\\nconsidered the issue unworthy of investigation. Nor is there\\nevidence that Cohn or Weber were displeased that Mollet\\nbrought the issue to their attention. The mere fact that they\\nmay have known about the incident before Mollet complained\\nis not evidence that the entire investigation and discipline was\\npretextual. See Boss v. Castro, 816 F.3d 910, 917 (7th Cir. 2016)\\n(holding that “circumstantial evidence must point directly to\\na discriminatory reason for the employer’s action “ and “a\\nplaintiff’s subjective beliefs are insufficient to create a genuine\\nissue of material fact”). A reasonable jury could not conclude\\nas much without engaging in speculation.\\n\\fNo. 18-3685 9\\n\\n Mollet also argues the timing of Cohn and Weber’s criticism\\nwas suspicious because it began less than a month after the\\nHernandez incident and continued through his constructive\\ndischarge nearly a year later. But these events have little in\\ncommon other than the fact that they occurred after the\\nHernandez incident. There is nothing that connects them to the\\nHernandez incident and no evidence indicating that the\\ncomplaints about Mollet were related to any goal other than\\nimproving his job performance. Without more, this evidence\\nprovides little support for Mollet’s causation argument. Gracia\\nv. SigmaTron International, Inc., 842 F.3d 1010, 1021 (7th Cir.\\n2016) (noting that “suspicious timing alone is rarely enough to\\ncreate an inference of retaliatory motive”).\\n Thus, there is no evidence presented by the plaintiff that\\ncould cause a reasonable juror to find that but-for Mollet\\ncomplaining about the Hernandez incident, Cohn and Weber\\nwould not have criticized Mollet for these potential deficien-\\ncies in his performance. Furthermore, there is substantial\\nevidence that Mollet’s relationship with Weber and Cohn was\\nstrained and Cohn had demonstrated a skepticism regarding\\nthe sufficiency of Mollet’s performance before the Hernandez\\nincident occurred. Because a reasonable jury could not find the\\ncausation required in a Title VII retaliation case based on the\\nevidence in the record, we affirm the district court.\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n Considering all of the above, we affirm the district court’s\\ndecision to grant summary judgment in favor of defendant.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2579,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4629448,"string":"4,629,448"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"Jennifer MILLER, Scott Poole, and Kevin Englund, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., Defendant-Appellee. David Johnson, Individually and on Behalf of a Class, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. United Airlines, Inc., and United Continental Holdings, Inc., Defendants-Appellants."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Jennifer Miller v. Southwest Airlines Company"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-06-13"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-3476; 19-1785"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Wood, Bauer, Easterbrook\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Frank Hoover Easterbrook\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\n\\nNo. 18-3476\\nJENNIFER MILLER, SCOTT POOLE, and KEVIN ENGLUND,\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants,\\n\\n v.\\n\\nSOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.,\\n Defendant-Appellee.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 18 C 86 — Marvin E. Aspen, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\nNo. 19-1785\\nDAVID JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of a class,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n\\n v.\\n\\nUNITED AIRLINES, INC., and UNITED CONTINENTAL HOLDINGS,\\nINC.,\\n Defendants-Appellants.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 17 C 08858 — Virginia M. Kendall, Judge.\\n\\f2 Nos. 18-3476 & 19-1785\\n\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED MAY 28, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 13, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and BAUER and EASTERBROOK,\\nCircuit Judges.\\n EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. We have consolidated two\\nappeals that pose a common question: whether persons who\\ncontend that air carriers have violated state law by using bi-\\nometric identification in the workplace must present these\\ncontentions to an adjustment board under the Railway Labor\\nAct (RLA), 45 U.S.C. §§ 151–88, which applies to air carriers\\nas well as railroads. 45 U.S.C. §181. The answer is yes if the\\ncontentions amount to a “minor dispute”—that is, a dispute\\nabout the interpretation or application of a collective bar-\\ngaining agreement. 45 U.S.C. §§ 151a, 184; Hawaiian Airlines,\\nInc. v. Norris, 512 U.S. 246, 252–53 (1994). Plaintiffs insist that\\na judge should resolve their contentions, while defendants\\ncontend that resolution belongs to an adjustment board.\\n The claims in each suit arise under the Biometric Infor-\\nmation Privacy Act (BIPA), 740 ILCS 14/5 to 14/25, which Il-\\nlinois adopted in 2008. This law applies to all biometric iden-\\ntifiers, which the statute defines to include fingerprints. 740\\nILCS 14/10. Before obtaining any fingerprint, a “private enti-\\nty” must inform the subject or “the subject’s legally author-\\nized representative” in writing about several things, such as\\nthe purpose of collecting the data and how long they will be\\nkept, and obtain the consent of the subject or authorized rep-\\nresentative. 740 ILCS 14/15(b). The private entity also must\\nestablish and make available to the public a protocol for re-\\n\\fNos. 18-3476 & 19-1785 3\\n\\ntaining and handling biometric data, which must be de-\\nstroyed “when the initial purpose for collecting or obtaining\\nsuch identifiers or information has been satisfied or within 3\\nyears of the individual’s last interaction with the private en-\\ntity, whichever occurs first.” 740 ILCS 14/15(a). Sales of bio-\\nmetric information are forbidden, 740 ILCS 14/15(c), and\\ntransfers are limited, 740 ILCS 14/15(d). Private entities must\\nprotect biometric information from disclosure. 740 ILCS\\n14/15(e).\\n Both Southwest Airlines and United Airlines maintain\\ntimekeeping systems that require workers to clock in and\\nout with their fingerprints. Plaintiffs contend that the air car-\\nriers implemented these systems without their consent,\\nfailed to publish protocols, and use third-party vendors to\\nimplement the systems, which plaintiffs call a forbidden dis-\\nclosure. Southwest and United contend that the plaintiffs’\\nunions have consented—either expressly or through the col-\\nlective bargaining agreements’ management-rights clauses—\\nand that any required notice has been provided to the un-\\nions. The air carriers insist that, to the extent these maoers\\nare disputed, an adjustment board rather than a judge must\\nresolve the difference—and that if state law gives workers\\nrights beyond those provided by federal law and collective\\nbargaining agreements, it is preempted by the Railway La-\\nbor Act.\\n The suits were assigned to different district judges.\\n Judge Aspen found that the plaintiffs have standing un-\\nder Article III but dismissed the suit against Southwest Air-\\nlines for improper venue. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3). 2018 U.S.\\nDist. LEXIS 143369 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 23, 2018). He made clear,\\nhowever, that the suit did not belong in state court or some\\n\\f4 Nos. 18-3476 & 19-1785\\n\\nother federal district court; he held, rather, that it belongs to\\nan adjustment board under the Railway Labor Act and that\\nany aoempt by Illinois to give workers rights to bypass their\\nunion (Transportation Workers Union Local 555) and deal\\ndirectly with an air carrier is preempted by federal law. Thus\\ndismissal has nothing to do with venue. See 28 U.S.C. §1391.\\n Dismissal should have been labeled either as a judgment\\non the pleadings, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c), or a dismissal for lack\\nof subject-maoer jurisdiction, as this circuit’s decisions sug-\\ngest. See, e.g., Carlson v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 758 F.3d\\n819, 824–25 (7th Cir. 2014); Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way\\nEmployees v. Norfolk Southern Ry., 745 F.3d 808 (7th Cir. 2014);\\nBrown v. Illinois Central R.R., 254 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 2001). But\\nsee, e.g., Oakey v. U.S. Airways Pilots Disability Plan, 723 F.3d\\n227 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (need to resolve a dispute under the\\nRailway Labor Act’s procedures does not imply lack of sub-\\nject-maoer jurisdiction); Emswiler v. CSX Transportation, Inc.,\\n691 F.3d 782 (6th Cir. 2012) (same). None of this circuit’s de-\\ncisions considers the effect of the Supreme Court’s modern\\nunderstanding of the difference between “jurisdiction” and\\nother kinds of rules. See Fort Bend County v. Davis, No. 18–\\n525 (U.S. June 3, 2019) (discussing the difference); Carlson,\\n758 F.3d at 831 (recognizing that this court has yet to consid-\\ner how the distinction applies to the Railway Labor Act). It is\\nunnecessary to do so here, for either a substantive or a juris-\\ndictional label ends the litigation between these parties and\\nforecloses its continuation in any other judicial forum.\\n The suit against United Airlines was filed in state court\\nand removed to federal court on two theories: federal-\\nquestion jurisdiction under the Railway Labor Act plus re-\\nmoval jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1453, part of the Class\\n\\fNos. 18-3476 & 19-1785 5\\n\\nAction Fairness Act (CAFA). Judge Kendall concluded that\\nthe subject is in the bailiwick of plaintiffs’ union (Interna-\\ntional Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers)\\nand an adjustment board; this aspect of her decision reaches\\nthe same conclusion as Judge Aspen. But Judge Kendall\\nadded that the complaint did not present a case or contro-\\nversy, because the class asserted only a bare procedural\\nright. This led her to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. 2018\\nU.S. Dist. LEXIS 127959 (N.D. Ill. July 31, 2018).\\n The class, which wants to litigate in state court, protested,\\nobserving that if there is no federal jurisdiction then the suit\\nmust be remanded. 28 U.S.C. §1447(c). Judge Kendall\\nagreed. United also complained about the initial decision.\\nObserving that the jurisdictional question had not been\\nraised or briefed by the parties, United maintained that\\nplaintiffs have standing because they allege (or at least im-\\nply) that biometric data had been transmioed outside United\\nand may have reached inappropriate hands. Judge Kendall\\nrefused to revisit that subject, however, and entered an order\\nreturning the case to state court. 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43484\\n(N.D. Ill. Mar. 18, 2019).\\n The remand of a suit removed under the Class Action\\nFairness Act is appealable with judicial permission, 28 U.S.C.\\n§1453(c)(1), and United asked us to accept its appeal. The\\nstatute makes appellate authority turn on removal under the\\nClass Action Fairness Act, not on whether the appeal pre-\\nsents an issue about the interpretation of that statute. This,\\nplus the disparate outcomes of the two suits, led us to accept\\nthe appeal even on the assumption that the only issues con-\\ncern the interaction between Illinois law and the Railway\\nLabor Act. (That assumption may be incorrect. We’ll return\\n\\f6 Nos. 18-3476 & 19-1785\\n\\nto the question how the Class Action Fairness Act applies to\\nthe removal of the suit against United.)\\n Subject-maoer jurisdiction is the first issue in any case,\\nand as far as we can see the two suits are identical in this re-\\nspect. Judge Aspen found that fingerprinted workers have\\nstanding, but Judge Kendall thought that a violation of the\\nstate statute does not cause concrete injury to anyone, so that\\nthe workers lack standing. See, e.g., Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136\\nS. Ct. 1540 (2016); Groshek v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., 865 F.3d\\n884 (7th Cir. 2017); Casillas v. Madison Avenue Associates, Inc.,\\nNo. 17-3162 (7th Cir. June 4, 2019). We disagree with Judge\\nKendall’s conclusion, for two principal reasons.\\n First, the stakes in both suits include whether the air car-\\nriers can use fingerprint identification. If the unions have not\\nconsented, or if the carriers have not provided unions with\\nrequired information, a court or adjustment board may or-\\nder a change in how workers clock in and out. The prospect\\nof a material change in workers’ terms and conditions of\\nemployment gives these suits a concrete dimension that\\nSpokeo, Groshek, and Casillas lacked. Either the discontinua-\\ntion of the practice, or the need for the air carriers to agree to\\nhigher wages to induce unions to consent, presents more\\nthan a bare procedural dispute. See Robertson v. Allied Solu-\\ntions, LLC, 902 F.3d 690, 697 (7th Cir. 2018) (“Article III’s\\nstrictures are met not only when a plaintiff complains of be-\\ning deprived of some benefit, but also when a plaintiff com-\\nplains that she was deprived of a chance to obtain a bene-\\nfit.”).\\n Second, plaintiffs assert that the air carriers are not fol-\\nlowing the statutory data-retention limit and may have used\\noutside parties to administer their timekeeping systems. The\\n\\fNos. 18-3476 & 19-1785 7\\n\\nlonger data are retained, and the more people have access,\\nthe greater the risk of disclosure (including by dissatisfied\\nemployees who misuse their access or by criminals who\\nhack into a computer system). This was Judge Aspen’s ra-\\ntionale for finding standing. 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143369 at\\n*5–10. Some employees devote time and money to safe-\\nguards against identity theft. That’s why we held in Remijas\\nv. Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, 794 F.3d 688 (7th Cir. 2015),\\nthat a suit contending that hackers obtained personal details\\npresents a case or controversy, even though the plaintiffs did\\nnot contend that their credit ratings had suffered. See also,\\ne.g., Lewert v. P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc., 819 F.3d 963 (7th\\nCir. 2016); Dieffenbach v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., 887 F.3d 826\\n(7th Cir. 2018). Because these complaints do not allege that\\nbiometric data are in the hands of malefactors, their position\\nis weaker than that of the plaintiffs in Remijas and its succes-\\nsors. We need not decide whether the risk of disclosure itself\\nsuffices for standing—or whether it would be necessary to\\ntake discovery into the question whether biometric data\\nhave been released—because the first ground of standing is\\nindependently sufficient.\\n We begin with the suit against Southwest, for in that suit\\nthe plaintiffs are content to litigate in federal court. We post-\\npone the question whether the suit against United was\\nproperly removed.\\n A dispute about the interpretation or administration of a\\ncollective bargaining agreement must be resolved by an ad-\\njustment board under the Railway Labor Act. There is no\\ndoubt that Southwest has a collective bargaining agreement\\nwith the union that represents the three plaintiffs. Southwest\\nasserts that the union assented to the use of fingerprints, ei-\\n\\f8 Nos. 18-3476 & 19-1785\\n\\nther expressly on being notified before the practice was insti-\\ntuted or through a management-rights clause. And there can\\nbe no doubt that how workers clock in and out is a proper\\nsubject of negotiation between unions and employers—is,\\nindeed, a mandatory subject of bargaining. 45 U.S.C. §152\\nFirst. (That phrase usually is associated with negotiations\\nunder the National Labor Relations Act, but the Supreme\\nCourt has held that the principle applies under the Railway\\nLabor Act too, with provisos that do not affect this case. See\\nPiTsburgh & Lake Erie R.R. v. Railway Labor Executives’ Associa-\\ntion, 491 U.S. 490, 508 n.17 (1989); Norfolk & Western Ry. v.\\nAmerican Train Dispatchers’ Association, 499 U.S. 117, 122\\n(1991). See also Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. Union\\nPacific R.R., 879 F.3d 754, 756 (7th Cir. 2017).)\\n As a maoer of federal law, unions in the air transporta-\\ntion business are the workers’ exclusive bargaining agents.\\n45 U.S.C. §152 Second; International Association of Machinists\\nv. Street, 367 U.S. 740, 760 (1961). A state cannot remove a\\ntopic from the union’s purview and require direct bargain-\\ning between individual workers and management. And Illi-\\nnois did not try. Its statute provides that a worker or an au-\\nthorized agent may receive necessary notices and consent to\\nthe collection of biometric information. 740 ILCS 14/15(b).\\nWe reject plaintiffs’ contention that a union is not a “legally\\nauthorized representative” for this purpose. Neither the\\nstatutory text nor any decision by a state court suggests that\\nIllinois wants to exclude a collective-bargaining representa-\\ntive from the category of authorized agents.\\n Whether Southwest’s or United’s unions did consent to\\nthe collection and use of biometric data, or perhaps grant au-\\nthority through a management-rights clause, is a question\\n\\fNos. 18-3476 & 19-1785 9\\n\\nfor an adjustment board. Similarly, the retention and de-\\nstruction schedules for biometric data, and whether air car-\\nriers may use third parties to implement timekeeping and\\nidentification systems, are topics for bargaining between un-\\nions and management. States cannot bypass the mechanisms\\nof the Railway Labor Act and authorize direct negotiation or\\nlitigation between workers and management. (Whether there\\nwould be a role for litigation if a union violated its duty of\\nfair representation is a subject we need not confront; plain-\\ntiffs have not named a union as a defendant or contended\\nthat a union has violated its duty of fair representation.) That\\nbiometric information concerns workers’ privacy does not\\ndistinguish it from many other subjects, such as drug testing,\\nthat are routinely covered by collective bargaining and on\\nwhich unions give consent on behalf of the whole bargaining\\nunit.\\n When a subject independent of collective bargaining aris-\\nes, and concerns different treatment of different workers, lit-\\nigation may proceed outside the scope of the Railway Labor\\nAct. The Supreme Court held in Lingle v. Norge Division of\\nMagic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399 (1988) (discussing the Labor\\nManagement Relations Act), that a retaliatory-discharge\\nclaim may be pursued under state law. Such a claim can be\\nresolved without interpreting a collective bargaining agree-\\nment; it is person-specific and does not concern the terms\\nand conditions of employment. See also Hughes v. United Air\\nLines, Inc., 634 F.3d 391 (7th Cir. 2011) (Lingle’s approach ap-\\nplies to the Railway Labor Act as well). But our plaintiffs as-\\nsert a right in common with all other employees, dealing\\nwith a mandatory subject of collective bargaining. It is not\\npossible even in principle to litigate a dispute about how an\\nair carrier acquires and uses fingerprint information for its\\n\\f10 Nos. 18-3476 & 19-1785\\n\\nwhole workforce without asking whether the union has con-\\nsented on the employees’ collective behalf. That’s why this\\ndispute must go to an adjustment board. Lingle, Hawaiian\\nAirlines, and Hughes all recognize that, if a dispute necessari-\\nly entails the interpretation or administration of a collective\\nbargaining agreement, there’s no room for individual em-\\nployees to sue under state law—in other words, state law is\\npreempted to the extent that a state has tried to overrule the\\nunion’s choices on behalf of the workers.\\n Plaintiffs stress that Southwest began using workers’ fin-\\ngerprints in 2006, two years before Illinois enacted its law.\\nThis shows that the union cannot have consented to South-\\nwest’s practices, plaintiffs conclude. That’s not necessarily\\nso. Southwest and the union may have discussed and re-\\nsolved this maoer in 2005, or 2006, or 2008, or in the decade\\nsince. Perhaps in 2006 Southwest supplied all of the infor-\\nmation, and the union gave all of the consents, that the state\\nlater required. Perhaps the statute led to a new round of bar-\\ngaining. What Southwest told the union, whether it fur-\\nnished that information in writing, when these things hap-\\npened, and what the union said or did in response, are\\nmaoers not in this record. They are properly not in this rec-\\nord, as they are topics for resolution by an adjustment board\\nrather than a judge. Perhaps a board will conclude that the\\nunion did not consent or did not receive essential infor-\\nmation before consenting, just as plaintiffs assert. But the\\nboard must make that decision and supply any appropriate\\nremedy.\\n What we have said about the suit against Southwest ap-\\nplies equally to the suit against United—and the conclusion\\nthat it is impossible to litigate under the state statute without\\n\\fNos. 18-3476 & 19-1785 11\\n\\nexamining what the union knew and agreed to also means\\nthat United was entitled to remove the suit to federal court\\nunder the federal-question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,\\n1441. Although the class aoempted to frame a complaint re-\\nlying entirely on state law, the complaint concerns collective\\nbargaining regulated by federal law. That brings into play a\\ndoctrine misleadingly called “complete preemption,” but\\nperhaps beoer labeled as a rule that when federal law com-\\npletely occupies a field any claim within that scope rests on\\nfederal law, no maoer how a plaintiff tries to frame the com-\\nplaint. See Franchise Tax Board v. Construction Laborers Vaca-\\ntion Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 23–24 (1983); Lehmann v. Brown, 230\\nF.3d 916, 919–20 (7th Cir. 2000); Hughes, 634 F.3d at 393.\\n If we are wrong about how the Railway Labor Act affects\\ncollective bargaining over fingerprinting in the workplace,\\nthen the doctrine of complete preemption would not author-\\nize removal of the suit against United. So, just in case, we\\nadd that the Class Action Fairness Act probably authorized\\nthe removal—probably, but not certainly.\\n A “class action” as defined in 28 U.S.C. §1332(d)(1) may\\nbe removed from state to federal court. 28 U.S.C. §1453(b).\\nSection 1332(d) creates federal jurisdiction if a class suit has\\nan amount in controversy exceeding $5 million and at least\\none member of the class has a citizenship different from that\\nof the defendants. Given the size of the class (more than\\n4,000 workers in Illinois alone use fingerprints to clock in\\nand out) and the penalties provided by state law, the contro-\\nversy exceeds $5 million. 740 ILCS 14/20. United is a Dela-\\nware corporation with its principal place of business in Illi-\\nnois, so if even one person who works for United in Illinois,\\nuses fingerprints to clock in and out, and is a citizen of any\\n\\f12 Nos. 18-3476 & 19-1785\\n\\nstate other than Delaware or Illinois, the requirement of min-\\nimal diversity is met. It seems likely to us that at least one\\nperson domiciled in southern Wisconsin or northwest Indi-\\nana works for United at O’Hare Airport, which is in com-\\nmuting distance from both states. But, for reasons that Unit-\\ned has not explained, its notice of removal does not assert\\nthis. Surely United knows where its workers live, and it may\\neven know their domicile (which is not always the state of\\nresidence), but it did not put that information in its notice of\\nremoval, which is therefore deficient.\\n The class representative tells us that he wants the class\\nlimited to citizens of Illinois. It is far from clear that this is\\nappropriate. The state law applies to private entities that col-\\nlect biometric data in Illinois; the statute does not purport to\\nexclude people who work in Illinois, provide biometric data\\nin Illinois, but are domiciled in other states. Nor is it clear\\nthat the class was so limited on the date of removal—and\\npost-removal amendments to a complaint or other papers do\\nnot eliminate jurisdiction proper at the time of removal. See\\nRockwell International Corp. v. United States, 549 U.S. 457, 473–\\n74 & n.6 (2007). Still, the shortcoming in United’s allegations\\nof citizenship remains as a potential obstacle.\\n After these problems were pointed out at oral argument,\\nUnited filed a jurisdictional supplement, invoking 28 U.S.C.\\n§1653. In addition to wrongly supposing that the suit chal-\\nlenges its employment practices nationwide—which is not\\npossible, as the state statute is limited to Illinois—the sup-\\nplemental filing continues to refer to the “residence” rather\\nthan the “citizenship” of United’s Illinois workforce.\\n Given our conclusion that the federal-question jurisdic-\\ntion supports removal, we need not remand for the district\\n\\fNos. 18-3476 & 19-1785 13\\n\\ncourt to explore the question whether, on the date the case\\nwas removed, one class member was a citizen of Wisconsin\\nor Indiana, or conceivably some third state other than Illinois\\nor Delaware—say, a citizen of California temporarily de-\\ntailed to work at O’Hare.\\n In Miller v. Southwest Airlines, No. 18-3476, the judg-\\nment of the district court is affirmed. In Johnson v. United Air-\\nlines, No. 19-1785, the judgment is vacated, and the case is\\nremanded with instructions to refer the parties’ dispute to an\\nadjustment board.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4406701/\", \"author_raw\": \"Frank Hoover Easterbrook\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"WOOD"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"BAUER"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"EASTERBROOK"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4629448/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":6,"string":"6"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Jennifer MILLER, Scott Poole, and Kevin Englund, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., Defendant-Appellee. David Johnson, Individually and on Behalf of a Class, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. United Airlines, Inc., and United Continental Holdings, Inc., Defendants-Appellants.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-06-13\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\n\nNo. 18-3476\nJENNIFER MILLER, SCOTT POOLE, and KEVIN ENGLUND,\n Plaintiffs-Appellants,\n\n v.\n\nSOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.,\n Defendant-Appellee.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 18 C 86 — Marvin E. Aspen, Judge.\n ____________________\n\nNo. 19-1785\nDAVID JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of a class,\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\n\n v.\n\nUNITED AIRLINES, INC., and UNITED CONTINENTAL HOLDINGS,\nINC.,\n Defendants-Appellants.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 17 C 08858 — Virginia M. Kendall, Judge.\n\f2 Nos. 18-3476 & 19-1785\n\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED MAY 28, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 13, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and BAUER and EASTERBROOK,\nCircuit Judges.\n EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. We have consolidated two\nappeals that pose a common question: whether persons who\ncontend that air carriers have violated state law by using bi-\nometric identification in the workplace must present these\ncontentions to an adjustment board under the Railway Labor\nAct (RLA), 45 U.S.C. §§ 151–88, which applies to air carriers\nas well as railroads. 45 U.S.C. §181. The answer is yes if the\ncontentions amount to a “minor dispute”—that is, a dispute\nabout the interpretation or application of a collective bar-\ngaining agreement. 45 U.S.C. §§ 151a, 184; Hawaiian Airlines,\nInc. v. Norris, 512 U.S. 246, 252–53 (1994). Plaintiffs insist that\na judge should resolve their contentions, while defendants\ncontend that resolution belongs to an adjustment board.\n The claims in each suit arise under the Biometric Infor-\nmation Privacy Act (BIPA), 740 ILCS 14/5 to 14/25, which Il-\nlinois adopted in 2008. This law applies to all biometric iden-\ntifiers, which the statute defines to include fingerprints. 740\nILCS 14/10. Before obtaining any fingerprint, a “private enti-\nty” must inform the subject or “the subject’s legally author-\nized representative” in writing about several things, such as\nthe purpose of collecting the data and how long they will be\nkept, and obtain the consent of the subject or authorized rep-\nresentative. 740 ILCS 14/15(b). The private entity also must\nestablish and make available to the public a protocol for re-\n\fNos. 18-3476 & 19-1785 3\n\ntaining and handling biometric data, which must be de-\nstroyed “when the initial purpose for collecting or obtaining\nsuch identifiers or information has been satisfied or within 3\nyears of the individual’s last interaction with the private en-\ntity, whichever occurs first.” 740 ILCS 14/15(a). Sales of bio-\nmetric information are forbidden, 740 ILCS 14/15(c), and\ntransfers are limited, 740 ILCS 14/15(d). Private entities must\nprotect biometric information from disclosure. 740 ILCS\n14/15(e).\n Both Southwest Airlines and United Airlines maintain\ntimekeeping systems that require workers to clock in and\nout with their fingerprints. Plaintiffs contend that the air car-\nriers implemented these systems without their consent,\nfailed to publish protocols, and use third-party vendors to\nimplement the systems, which plaintiffs call a forbidden dis-\nclosure. Southwest and United contend that the plaintiffs’\nunions have consented—either expressly or through the col-\nlective bargaining agreements’ management-rights clauses—\nand that any required notice has been provided to the un-\nions. The air carriers insist that, to the extent these maoers\nare disputed, an adjustment board rather than a judge must\nresolve the difference—and that if state law gives workers\nrights beyond those provided by federal law and collective\nbargaining agreements, it is preempted by the Railway La-\nbor Act.\n The suits were assigned to different district judges.\n Judge Aspen found that the plaintiffs have standing un-\nder Article III but dismissed the suit against Southwest Air-\nlines for improper venue. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3). 2018 U.S.\nDist. LEXIS 143369 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 23, 2018). He made clear,\nhowever, that the suit did not belong in state court or some\n\f4 Nos. 18-3476 & 19-1785\n\nother federal district court; he held, rather, that it belongs to\nan adjustment board under the Railway Labor Act and that\nany aoempt by Illinois to give workers rights to bypass their\nunion (Transportation Workers Union Local 555) and deal\ndirectly with an air carrier is preempted by federal law. Thus\ndismissal has nothing to do with venue. See 28 U.S.C. §1391.\n Dismissal should have been labeled either as a judgment\non the pleadings, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c), or a dismissal for lack\nof subject-maoer jurisdiction, as this circuit’s decisions sug-\ngest. See, e.g., Carlson v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 758 F.3d\n819, 824–25 (7th Cir. 2014); Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way\nEmployees v. Norfolk Southern Ry., 745 F.3d 808 (7th Cir. 2014);\nBrown v. Illinois Central R.R., 254 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 2001). But\nsee, e.g., Oakey v. U.S. Airways Pilots Disability Plan, 723 F.3d\n227 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (need to resolve a dispute under the\nRailway Labor Act’s procedures does not imply lack of sub-\nject-maoer jurisdiction); Emswiler v. CSX Transportation, Inc.,\n691 F.3d 782 (6th Cir. 2012) (same). None of this circuit’s de-\ncisions considers the effect of the Supreme Court’s modern\nunderstanding of the difference between “jurisdiction” and\nother kinds of rules. See Fort Bend County v. Davis, No. 18–\n525 (U.S. June 3, 2019) (discussing the difference); Carlson,\n758 F.3d at 831 (recognizing that this court has yet to consid-\ner how the distinction applies to the Railway Labor Act). It is\nunnecessary to do so here, for either a substantive or a juris-\ndictional label ends the litigation between these parties and\nforecloses its continuation in any other judicial forum.\n The suit against United Airlines was filed in state court\nand removed to federal court on two theories: federal-\nquestion jurisdiction under the Railway Labor Act plus re-\nmoval jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1453, part of the Class\n\fNos. 18-3476 & 19-1785 5\n\nAction Fairness Act (CAFA). Judge Kendall concluded that\nthe subject is in the bailiwick of plaintiffs’ union (Interna-\ntional Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers)\nand an adjustment board; this aspect of her decision reaches\nthe same conclusion as Judge Aspen. But Judge Kendall\nadded that the complaint did not present a case or contro-\nversy, because the class asserted only a bare procedural\nright. This led her to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. 2018\nU.S. Dist. LEXIS 127959 (N.D. Ill. July 31, 2018).\n The class, which wants to litigate in state court, protested,\nobserving that if there is no federal jurisdiction then the suit\nmust be remanded. 28 U.S.C. §1447(c). Judge Kendall\nagreed. United also complained about the initial decision.\nObserving that the jurisdictional question had not been\nraised or briefed by the parties, United maintained that\nplaintiffs have standing because they allege (or at least im-\nply) that biometric data had been transmioed outside United\nand may have reached inappropriate hands. Judge Kendall\nrefused to revisit that subject, however, and entered an order\nreturning the case to state court. 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43484\n(N.D. Ill. Mar. 18, 2019).\n The remand of a suit removed under the Class Action\nFairness Act is appealable with judicial permission, 28 U.S.C.\n§1453(c)(1), and United asked us to accept its appeal. The\nstatute makes appellate authority turn on removal under the\nClass Action Fairness Act, not on whether the appeal pre-\nsents an issue about the interpretation of that statute. This,\nplus the disparate outcomes of the two suits, led us to accept\nthe appeal even on the assumption that the only issues con-\ncern the interaction between Illinois law and the Railway\nLabor Act. (That assumption may be incorrect. We’ll return\n\f6 Nos. 18-3476 & 19-1785\n\nto the question how the Class Action Fairness Act applies to\nthe removal of the suit against United.)\n Subject-maoer jurisdiction is the first issue in any case,\nand as far as we can see the two suits are identical in this re-\nspect. Judge Aspen found that fingerprinted workers have\nstanding, but Judge Kendall thought that a violation of the\nstate statute does not cause concrete injury to anyone, so that\nthe workers lack standing. See, e.g., Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136\nS. Ct. 1540 (2016); Groshek v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., 865 F.3d\n884 (7th Cir. 2017); Casillas v. Madison Avenue Associates, Inc.,\nNo. 17-3162 (7th Cir. June 4, 2019). We disagree with Judge\nKendall’s conclusion, for two principal reasons.\n First, the stakes in both suits include whether the air car-\nriers can use fingerprint identification. If the unions have not\nconsented, or if the carriers have not provided unions with\nrequired information, a court or adjustment board may or-\nder a change in how workers clock in and out. The prospect\nof a material change in workers’ terms and conditions of\nemployment gives these suits a concrete dimension that\nSpokeo, Groshek, and Casillas lacked. Either the discontinua-\ntion of the practice, or the need for the air carriers to agree to\nhigher wages to induce unions to consent, presents more\nthan a bare procedural dispute. See Robertson v. Allied Solu-\ntions, LLC, 902 F.3d 690, 697 (7th Cir. 2018) (“Article III’s\nstrictures are met not only when a plaintiff complains of be-\ning deprived of some benefit, but also when a plaintiff com-\nplains that she was deprived of a chance to obtain a bene-\nfit.”).\n Second, plaintiffs assert that the air carriers are not fol-\nlowing the statutory data-retention limit and may have used\noutside parties to administer their timekeeping systems. The\n\fNos. 18-3476 & 19-1785 7\n\nlonger data are retained, and the more people have access,\nthe greater the risk of disclosure (including by dissatisfied\nemployees who misuse their access or by criminals who\nhack into a computer system). This was Judge Aspen’s ra-\ntionale for finding standing. 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143369 at\n*5–10. Some employees devote time and money to safe-\nguards against identity theft. That’s why we held in Remijas\nv. Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, 794 F.3d 688 (7th Cir. 2015),\nthat a suit contending that hackers obtained personal details\npresents a case or controversy, even though the plaintiffs did\nnot contend that their credit ratings had suffered. See also,\ne.g., Lewert v. P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc., 819 F.3d 963 (7th\nCir. 2016); Dieffenbach v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., 887 F.3d 826\n(7th Cir. 2018). Because these complaints do not allege that\nbiometric data are in the hands of malefactors, their position\nis weaker than that of the plaintiffs in Remijas and its succes-\nsors. We need not decide whether the risk of disclosure itself\nsuffices for standing—or whether it would be necessary to\ntake discovery into the question whether biometric data\nhave been released—because the first ground of standing is\nindependently sufficient.\n We begin with the suit against Southwest, for in that suit\nthe plaintiffs are content to litigate in federal court. We post-\npone the question whether the suit against United was\nproperly removed.\n A dispute about the interpretation or administration of a\ncollective bargaining agreement must be resolved by an ad-\njustment board under the Railway Labor Act. There is no\ndoubt that Southwest has a collective bargaining agreement\nwith the union that represents the three plaintiffs. Southwest\nasserts that the union assented to the use of fingerprints, ei-\n\f8 Nos. 18-3476 & 19-1785\n\nther expressly on being notified before the practice was insti-\ntuted or through a management-rights clause. And there can\nbe no doubt that how workers clock in and out is a proper\nsubject of negotiation between unions and employers—is,\nindeed, a mandatory subject of bargaining. 45 U.S.C. §152\nFirst. (That phrase usually is associated with negotiations\nunder the National Labor Relations Act, but the Supreme\nCourt has held that the principle applies under the Railway\nLabor Act too, with provisos that do not affect this case. See\nPiTsburgh & Lake Erie R.R. v. Railway Labor Executives’ Associa-\ntion, 491 U.S. 490, 508 n.17 (1989); Norfolk & Western Ry. v.\nAmerican Train Dispatchers’ Association, 499 U.S. 117, 122\n(1991). See also Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. Union\nPacific R.R., 879 F.3d 754, 756 (7th Cir. 2017).)\n As a maoer of federal law, unions in the air transporta-\ntion business are the workers’ exclusive bargaining agents.\n45 U.S.C. §152 Second; International Association of Machinists\nv. Street, 367 U.S. 740, 760 (1961). A state cannot remove a\ntopic from the union’s purview and require direct bargain-\ning between individual workers and management. And Illi-\nnois did not try. Its statute provides that a worker or an au-\nthorized agent may receive necessary notices and consent to\nthe collection of biometric information. 740 ILCS 14/15(b).\nWe reject plaintiffs’ contention that a union is not a “legally\nauthorized representative” for this purpose. Neither the\nstatutory text nor any decision by a state court suggests that\nIllinois wants to exclude a collective-bargaining representa-\ntive from the category of authorized agents.\n Whether Southwest’s or United’s unions did consent to\nthe collection and use of biometric data, or perhaps grant au-\nthority through a management-rights clause, is a question\n\fNos. 18-3476 & 19-1785 9\n\nfor an adjustment board. Similarly, the retention and de-\nstruction schedules for biometric data, and whether air car-\nriers may use third parties to implement timekeeping and\nidentification systems, are topics for bargaining between un-\nions and management. States cannot bypass the mechanisms\nof the Railway Labor Act and authorize direct negotiation or\nlitigation between workers and management. (Whether there\nwould be a role for litigation if a union violated its duty of\nfair representation is a subject we need not confront; plain-\ntiffs have not named a union as a defendant or contended\nthat a union has violated its duty of fair representation.) That\nbiometric information concerns workers’ privacy does not\ndistinguish it from many other subjects, such as drug testing,\nthat are routinely covered by collective bargaining and on\nwhich unions give consent on behalf of the whole bargaining\nunit.\n When a subject independent of collective bargaining aris-\nes, and concerns different treatment of different workers, lit-\nigation may proceed outside the scope of the Railway Labor\nAct. The Supreme Court held in Lingle v. Norge Division of\nMagic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399 (1988) (discussing the Labor\nManagement Relations Act), that a retaliatory-discharge\nclaim may be pursued under state law. Such a claim can be\nresolved without interpreting a collective bargaining agree-\nment; it is person-specific and does not concern the terms\nand conditions of employment. See also Hughes v. United Air\nLines, Inc., 634 F.3d 391 (7th Cir. 2011) (Lingle’s approach ap-\nplies to the Railway Labor Act as well). But our plaintiffs as-\nsert a right in common with all other employees, dealing\nwith a mandatory subject of collective bargaining. It is not\npossible even in principle to litigate a dispute about how an\nair carrier acquires and uses fingerprint information for its\n\f10 Nos. 18-3476 & 19-1785\n\nwhole workforce without asking whether the union has con-\nsented on the employees’ collective behalf. That’s why this\ndispute must go to an adjustment board. Lingle, Hawaiian\nAirlines, and Hughes all recognize that, if a dispute necessari-\nly entails the interpretation or administration of a collective\nbargaining agreement, there’s no room for individual em-\nployees to sue under state law—in other words, state law is\npreempted to the extent that a state has tried to overrule the\nunion’s choices on behalf of the workers.\n Plaintiffs stress that Southwest began using workers’ fin-\ngerprints in 2006, two years before Illinois enacted its law.\nThis shows that the union cannot have consented to South-\nwest’s practices, plaintiffs conclude. That’s not necessarily\nso. Southwest and the union may have discussed and re-\nsolved this maoer in 2005, or 2006, or 2008, or in the decade\nsince. Perhaps in 2006 Southwest supplied all of the infor-\nmation, and the union gave all of the consents, that the state\nlater required. Perhaps the statute led to a new round of bar-\ngaining. What Southwest told the union, whether it fur-\nnished that information in writing, when these things hap-\npened, and what the union said or did in response, are\nmaoers not in this record. They are properly not in this rec-\nord, as they are topics for resolution by an adjustment board\nrather than a judge. Perhaps a board will conclude that the\nunion did not consent or did not receive essential infor-\nmation before consenting, just as plaintiffs assert. But the\nboard must make that decision and supply any appropriate\nremedy.\n What we have said about the suit against Southwest ap-\nplies equally to the suit against United—and the conclusion\nthat it is impossible to litigate under the state statute without\n\fNos. 18-3476 & 19-1785 11\n\nexamining what the union knew and agreed to also means\nthat United was entitled to remove the suit to federal court\nunder the federal-question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,\n1441. Although the class aoempted to frame a complaint re-\nlying entirely on state law, the complaint concerns collective\nbargaining regulated by federal law. That brings into play a\ndoctrine misleadingly called “complete preemption,” but\nperhaps beoer labeled as a rule that when federal law com-\npletely occupies a field any claim within that scope rests on\nfederal law, no maoer how a plaintiff tries to frame the com-\nplaint. See Franchise Tax Board v. Construction Laborers Vaca-\ntion Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 23–24 (1983); Lehmann v. Brown, 230\nF.3d 916, 919–20 (7th Cir. 2000); Hughes, 634 F.3d at 393.\n If we are wrong about how the Railway Labor Act affects\ncollective bargaining over fingerprinting in the workplace,\nthen the doctrine of complete preemption would not author-\nize removal of the suit against United. So, just in case, we\nadd that the Class Action Fairness Act probably authorized\nthe removal—probably, but not certainly.\n A “class action” as defined in 28 U.S.C. §1332(d)(1) may\nbe removed from state to federal court. 28 U.S.C. §1453(b).\nSection 1332(d) creates federal jurisdiction if a class suit has\nan amount in controversy exceeding $5 million and at least\none member of the class has a citizenship different from that\nof the defendants. Given the size of the class (more than\n4,000 workers in Illinois alone use fingerprints to clock in\nand out) and the penalties provided by state law, the contro-\nversy exceeds $5 million. 740 ILCS 14/20. United is a Dela-\nware corporation with its principal place of business in Illi-\nnois, so if even one person who works for United in Illinois,\nuses fingerprints to clock in and out, and is a citizen of any\n\f12 Nos. 18-3476 & 19-1785\n\nstate other than Delaware or Illinois, the requirement of min-\nimal diversity is met. It seems likely to us that at least one\nperson domiciled in southern Wisconsin or northwest Indi-\nana works for United at O’Hare Airport, which is in com-\nmuting distance from both states. But, for reasons that Unit-\ned has not explained, its notice of removal does not assert\nthis. Surely United knows where its workers live, and it may\neven know their domicile (which is not always the state of\nresidence), but it did not put that information in its notice of\nremoval, which is therefore deficient.\n The class representative tells us that he wants the class\nlimited to citizens of Illinois. It is far from clear that this is\nappropriate. The state law applies to private entities that col-\nlect biometric data in Illinois; the statute does not purport to\nexclude people who work in Illinois, provide biometric data\nin Illinois, but are domiciled in other states. Nor is it clear\nthat the class was so limited on the date of removal—and\npost-removal amendments to a complaint or other papers do\nnot eliminate jurisdiction proper at the time of removal. See\nRockwell International Corp. v. United States, 549 U.S. 457, 473–\n74 & n.6 (2007). Still, the shortcoming in United’s allegations\nof citizenship remains as a potential obstacle.\n After these problems were pointed out at oral argument,\nUnited filed a jurisdictional supplement, invoking 28 U.S.C.\n§1653. In addition to wrongly supposing that the suit chal-\nlenges its employment practices nationwide—which is not\npossible, as the state statute is limited to Illinois—the sup-\nplemental filing continues to refer to the “residence” rather\nthan the “citizenship” of United’s Illinois workforce.\n Given our conclusion that the federal-question jurisdic-\ntion supports removal, we need not remand for the district\n\fNos. 18-3476 & 19-1785 13\n\ncourt to explore the question whether, on the date the case\nwas removed, one class member was a citizen of Wisconsin\nor Indiana, or conceivably some third state other than Illinois\nor Delaware—say, a citizen of California temporarily de-\ntailed to work at O’Hare.\n In Miller v. Southwest Airlines, No. 18-3476, the judg-\nment of the district court is affirmed. In Johnson v. United Air-\nlines, No. 19-1785, the judgment is vacated, and the case is\nremanded with instructions to refer the parties’ dispute to an\nadjustment board.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Jennifer MILLER, Scott Poole, and Kevin Englund, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., Defendant-Appellee. David Johnson, Individually and on Behalf of a Class, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. United Airlines, Inc., and United Continental Holdings, Inc., Defendants-Appellants.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-06-13\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\n\\nNo. 18-3476\\nJENNIFER MILLER, SCOTT POOLE, and KEVIN ENGLUND,\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants,\\n\\n v.\\n\\nSOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.,\\n Defendant-Appellee.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 18 C 86 — Marvin E. Aspen, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\nNo. 19-1785\\nDAVID JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of a class,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n\\n v.\\n\\nUNITED AIRLINES, INC., and UNITED CONTINENTAL HOLDINGS,\\nINC.,\\n Defendants-Appellants.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 17 C 08858 — Virginia M. Kendall, Judge.\\n\\f2 Nos. 18-3476 & 19-1785\\n\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED MAY 28, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 13, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and BAUER and EASTERBROOK,\\nCircuit Judges.\\n EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. We have consolidated two\\nappeals that pose a common question: whether persons who\\ncontend that air carriers have violated state law by using bi-\\nometric identification in the workplace must present these\\ncontentions to an adjustment board under the Railway Labor\\nAct (RLA), 45 U.S.C. §§ 151–88, which applies to air carriers\\nas well as railroads. 45 U.S.C. §181. The answer is yes if the\\ncontentions amount to a “minor dispute”—that is, a dispute\\nabout the interpretation or application of a collective bar-\\ngaining agreement. 45 U.S.C. §§ 151a, 184; Hawaiian Airlines,\\nInc. v. Norris, 512 U.S. 246, 252–53 (1994). Plaintiffs insist that\\na judge should resolve their contentions, while defendants\\ncontend that resolution belongs to an adjustment board.\\n The claims in each suit arise under the Biometric Infor-\\nmation Privacy Act (BIPA), 740 ILCS 14/5 to 14/25, which Il-\\nlinois adopted in 2008. This law applies to all biometric iden-\\ntifiers, which the statute defines to include fingerprints. 740\\nILCS 14/10. Before obtaining any fingerprint, a “private enti-\\nty” must inform the subject or “the subject’s legally author-\\nized representative” in writing about several things, such as\\nthe purpose of collecting the data and how long they will be\\nkept, and obtain the consent of the subject or authorized rep-\\nresentative. 740 ILCS 14/15(b). The private entity also must\\nestablish and make available to the public a protocol for re-\\n\\fNos. 18-3476 & 19-1785 3\\n\\ntaining and handling biometric data, which must be de-\\nstroyed “when the initial purpose for collecting or obtaining\\nsuch identifiers or information has been satisfied or within 3\\nyears of the individual’s last interaction with the private en-\\ntity, whichever occurs first.” 740 ILCS 14/15(a). Sales of bio-\\nmetric information are forbidden, 740 ILCS 14/15(c), and\\ntransfers are limited, 740 ILCS 14/15(d). Private entities must\\nprotect biometric information from disclosure. 740 ILCS\\n14/15(e).\\n Both Southwest Airlines and United Airlines maintain\\ntimekeeping systems that require workers to clock in and\\nout with their fingerprints. Plaintiffs contend that the air car-\\nriers implemented these systems without their consent,\\nfailed to publish protocols, and use third-party vendors to\\nimplement the systems, which plaintiffs call a forbidden dis-\\nclosure. Southwest and United contend that the plaintiffs’\\nunions have consented—either expressly or through the col-\\nlective bargaining agreements’ management-rights clauses—\\nand that any required notice has been provided to the un-\\nions. The air carriers insist that, to the extent these maoers\\nare disputed, an adjustment board rather than a judge must\\nresolve the difference—and that if state law gives workers\\nrights beyond those provided by federal law and collective\\nbargaining agreements, it is preempted by the Railway La-\\nbor Act.\\n The suits were assigned to different district judges.\\n Judge Aspen found that the plaintiffs have standing un-\\nder Article III but dismissed the suit against Southwest Air-\\nlines for improper venue. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3). 2018 U.S.\\nDist. LEXIS 143369 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 23, 2018). He made clear,\\nhowever, that the suit did not belong in state court or some\\n\\f4 Nos. 18-3476 & 19-1785\\n\\nother federal district court; he held, rather, that it belongs to\\nan adjustment board under the Railway Labor Act and that\\nany aoempt by Illinois to give workers rights to bypass their\\nunion (Transportation Workers Union Local 555) and deal\\ndirectly with an air carrier is preempted by federal law. Thus\\ndismissal has nothing to do with venue. See 28 U.S.C. §1391.\\n Dismissal should have been labeled either as a judgment\\non the pleadings, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c), or a dismissal for lack\\nof subject-maoer jurisdiction, as this circuit’s decisions sug-\\ngest. See, e.g., Carlson v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 758 F.3d\\n819, 824–25 (7th Cir. 2014); Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way\\nEmployees v. Norfolk Southern Ry., 745 F.3d 808 (7th Cir. 2014);\\nBrown v. Illinois Central R.R., 254 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 2001). But\\nsee, e.g., Oakey v. U.S. Airways Pilots Disability Plan, 723 F.3d\\n227 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (need to resolve a dispute under the\\nRailway Labor Act’s procedures does not imply lack of sub-\\nject-maoer jurisdiction); Emswiler v. CSX Transportation, Inc.,\\n691 F.3d 782 (6th Cir. 2012) (same). None of this circuit’s de-\\ncisions considers the effect of the Supreme Court’s modern\\nunderstanding of the difference between “jurisdiction” and\\nother kinds of rules. See Fort Bend County v. Davis, No. 18–\\n525 (U.S. June 3, 2019) (discussing the difference); Carlson,\\n758 F.3d at 831 (recognizing that this court has yet to consid-\\ner how the distinction applies to the Railway Labor Act). It is\\nunnecessary to do so here, for either a substantive or a juris-\\ndictional label ends the litigation between these parties and\\nforecloses its continuation in any other judicial forum.\\n The suit against United Airlines was filed in state court\\nand removed to federal court on two theories: federal-\\nquestion jurisdiction under the Railway Labor Act plus re-\\nmoval jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1453, part of the Class\\n\\fNos. 18-3476 & 19-1785 5\\n\\nAction Fairness Act (CAFA). Judge Kendall concluded that\\nthe subject is in the bailiwick of plaintiffs’ union (Interna-\\ntional Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers)\\nand an adjustment board; this aspect of her decision reaches\\nthe same conclusion as Judge Aspen. But Judge Kendall\\nadded that the complaint did not present a case or contro-\\nversy, because the class asserted only a bare procedural\\nright. This led her to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. 2018\\nU.S. Dist. LEXIS 127959 (N.D. Ill. July 31, 2018).\\n The class, which wants to litigate in state court, protested,\\nobserving that if there is no federal jurisdiction then the suit\\nmust be remanded. 28 U.S.C. §1447(c). Judge Kendall\\nagreed. United also complained about the initial decision.\\nObserving that the jurisdictional question had not been\\nraised or briefed by the parties, United maintained that\\nplaintiffs have standing because they allege (or at least im-\\nply) that biometric data had been transmioed outside United\\nand may have reached inappropriate hands. Judge Kendall\\nrefused to revisit that subject, however, and entered an order\\nreturning the case to state court. 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43484\\n(N.D. Ill. Mar. 18, 2019).\\n The remand of a suit removed under the Class Action\\nFairness Act is appealable with judicial permission, 28 U.S.C.\\n§1453(c)(1), and United asked us to accept its appeal. The\\nstatute makes appellate authority turn on removal under the\\nClass Action Fairness Act, not on whether the appeal pre-\\nsents an issue about the interpretation of that statute. This,\\nplus the disparate outcomes of the two suits, led us to accept\\nthe appeal even on the assumption that the only issues con-\\ncern the interaction between Illinois law and the Railway\\nLabor Act. (That assumption may be incorrect. We’ll return\\n\\f6 Nos. 18-3476 & 19-1785\\n\\nto the question how the Class Action Fairness Act applies to\\nthe removal of the suit against United.)\\n Subject-maoer jurisdiction is the first issue in any case,\\nand as far as we can see the two suits are identical in this re-\\nspect. Judge Aspen found that fingerprinted workers have\\nstanding, but Judge Kendall thought that a violation of the\\nstate statute does not cause concrete injury to anyone, so that\\nthe workers lack standing. See, e.g., Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136\\nS. Ct. 1540 (2016); Groshek v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., 865 F.3d\\n884 (7th Cir. 2017); Casillas v. Madison Avenue Associates, Inc.,\\nNo. 17-3162 (7th Cir. June 4, 2019). We disagree with Judge\\nKendall’s conclusion, for two principal reasons.\\n First, the stakes in both suits include whether the air car-\\nriers can use fingerprint identification. If the unions have not\\nconsented, or if the carriers have not provided unions with\\nrequired information, a court or adjustment board may or-\\nder a change in how workers clock in and out. The prospect\\nof a material change in workers’ terms and conditions of\\nemployment gives these suits a concrete dimension that\\nSpokeo, Groshek, and Casillas lacked. Either the discontinua-\\ntion of the practice, or the need for the air carriers to agree to\\nhigher wages to induce unions to consent, presents more\\nthan a bare procedural dispute. See Robertson v. Allied Solu-\\ntions, LLC, 902 F.3d 690, 697 (7th Cir. 2018) (“Article III’s\\nstrictures are met not only when a plaintiff complains of be-\\ning deprived of some benefit, but also when a plaintiff com-\\nplains that she was deprived of a chance to obtain a bene-\\nfit.”).\\n Second, plaintiffs assert that the air carriers are not fol-\\nlowing the statutory data-retention limit and may have used\\noutside parties to administer their timekeeping systems. The\\n\\fNos. 18-3476 & 19-1785 7\\n\\nlonger data are retained, and the more people have access,\\nthe greater the risk of disclosure (including by dissatisfied\\nemployees who misuse their access or by criminals who\\nhack into a computer system). This was Judge Aspen’s ra-\\ntionale for finding standing. 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143369 at\\n*5–10. Some employees devote time and money to safe-\\nguards against identity theft. That’s why we held in Remijas\\nv. Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, 794 F.3d 688 (7th Cir. 2015),\\nthat a suit contending that hackers obtained personal details\\npresents a case or controversy, even though the plaintiffs did\\nnot contend that their credit ratings had suffered. See also,\\ne.g., Lewert v. P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc., 819 F.3d 963 (7th\\nCir. 2016); Dieffenbach v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., 887 F.3d 826\\n(7th Cir. 2018). Because these complaints do not allege that\\nbiometric data are in the hands of malefactors, their position\\nis weaker than that of the plaintiffs in Remijas and its succes-\\nsors. We need not decide whether the risk of disclosure itself\\nsuffices for standing—or whether it would be necessary to\\ntake discovery into the question whether biometric data\\nhave been released—because the first ground of standing is\\nindependently sufficient.\\n We begin with the suit against Southwest, for in that suit\\nthe plaintiffs are content to litigate in federal court. We post-\\npone the question whether the suit against United was\\nproperly removed.\\n A dispute about the interpretation or administration of a\\ncollective bargaining agreement must be resolved by an ad-\\njustment board under the Railway Labor Act. There is no\\ndoubt that Southwest has a collective bargaining agreement\\nwith the union that represents the three plaintiffs. Southwest\\nasserts that the union assented to the use of fingerprints, ei-\\n\\f8 Nos. 18-3476 & 19-1785\\n\\nther expressly on being notified before the practice was insti-\\ntuted or through a management-rights clause. And there can\\nbe no doubt that how workers clock in and out is a proper\\nsubject of negotiation between unions and employers—is,\\nindeed, a mandatory subject of bargaining. 45 U.S.C. §152\\nFirst. (That phrase usually is associated with negotiations\\nunder the National Labor Relations Act, but the Supreme\\nCourt has held that the principle applies under the Railway\\nLabor Act too, with provisos that do not affect this case. See\\nPiTsburgh & Lake Erie R.R. v. Railway Labor Executives’ Associa-\\ntion, 491 U.S. 490, 508 n.17 (1989); Norfolk & Western Ry. v.\\nAmerican Train Dispatchers’ Association, 499 U.S. 117, 122\\n(1991). See also Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. Union\\nPacific R.R., 879 F.3d 754, 756 (7th Cir. 2017).)\\n As a maoer of federal law, unions in the air transporta-\\ntion business are the workers’ exclusive bargaining agents.\\n45 U.S.C. §152 Second; International Association of Machinists\\nv. Street, 367 U.S. 740, 760 (1961). A state cannot remove a\\ntopic from the union’s purview and require direct bargain-\\ning between individual workers and management. And Illi-\\nnois did not try. Its statute provides that a worker or an au-\\nthorized agent may receive necessary notices and consent to\\nthe collection of biometric information. 740 ILCS 14/15(b).\\nWe reject plaintiffs’ contention that a union is not a “legally\\nauthorized representative” for this purpose. Neither the\\nstatutory text nor any decision by a state court suggests that\\nIllinois wants to exclude a collective-bargaining representa-\\ntive from the category of authorized agents.\\n Whether Southwest’s or United’s unions did consent to\\nthe collection and use of biometric data, or perhaps grant au-\\nthority through a management-rights clause, is a question\\n\\fNos. 18-3476 & 19-1785 9\\n\\nfor an adjustment board. Similarly, the retention and de-\\nstruction schedules for biometric data, and whether air car-\\nriers may use third parties to implement timekeeping and\\nidentification systems, are topics for bargaining between un-\\nions and management. States cannot bypass the mechanisms\\nof the Railway Labor Act and authorize direct negotiation or\\nlitigation between workers and management. (Whether there\\nwould be a role for litigation if a union violated its duty of\\nfair representation is a subject we need not confront; plain-\\ntiffs have not named a union as a defendant or contended\\nthat a union has violated its duty of fair representation.) That\\nbiometric information concerns workers’ privacy does not\\ndistinguish it from many other subjects, such as drug testing,\\nthat are routinely covered by collective bargaining and on\\nwhich unions give consent on behalf of the whole bargaining\\nunit.\\n When a subject independent of collective bargaining aris-\\nes, and concerns different treatment of different workers, lit-\\nigation may proceed outside the scope of the Railway Labor\\nAct. The Supreme Court held in Lingle v. Norge Division of\\nMagic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399 (1988) (discussing the Labor\\nManagement Relations Act), that a retaliatory-discharge\\nclaim may be pursued under state law. Such a claim can be\\nresolved without interpreting a collective bargaining agree-\\nment; it is person-specific and does not concern the terms\\nand conditions of employment. See also Hughes v. United Air\\nLines, Inc., 634 F.3d 391 (7th Cir. 2011) (Lingle’s approach ap-\\nplies to the Railway Labor Act as well). But our plaintiffs as-\\nsert a right in common with all other employees, dealing\\nwith a mandatory subject of collective bargaining. It is not\\npossible even in principle to litigate a dispute about how an\\nair carrier acquires and uses fingerprint information for its\\n\\f10 Nos. 18-3476 & 19-1785\\n\\nwhole workforce without asking whether the union has con-\\nsented on the employees’ collective behalf. That’s why this\\ndispute must go to an adjustment board. Lingle, Hawaiian\\nAirlines, and Hughes all recognize that, if a dispute necessari-\\nly entails the interpretation or administration of a collective\\nbargaining agreement, there’s no room for individual em-\\nployees to sue under state law—in other words, state law is\\npreempted to the extent that a state has tried to overrule the\\nunion’s choices on behalf of the workers.\\n Plaintiffs stress that Southwest began using workers’ fin-\\ngerprints in 2006, two years before Illinois enacted its law.\\nThis shows that the union cannot have consented to South-\\nwest’s practices, plaintiffs conclude. That’s not necessarily\\nso. Southwest and the union may have discussed and re-\\nsolved this maoer in 2005, or 2006, or 2008, or in the decade\\nsince. Perhaps in 2006 Southwest supplied all of the infor-\\nmation, and the union gave all of the consents, that the state\\nlater required. Perhaps the statute led to a new round of bar-\\ngaining. What Southwest told the union, whether it fur-\\nnished that information in writing, when these things hap-\\npened, and what the union said or did in response, are\\nmaoers not in this record. They are properly not in this rec-\\nord, as they are topics for resolution by an adjustment board\\nrather than a judge. Perhaps a board will conclude that the\\nunion did not consent or did not receive essential infor-\\nmation before consenting, just as plaintiffs assert. But the\\nboard must make that decision and supply any appropriate\\nremedy.\\n What we have said about the suit against Southwest ap-\\nplies equally to the suit against United—and the conclusion\\nthat it is impossible to litigate under the state statute without\\n\\fNos. 18-3476 & 19-1785 11\\n\\nexamining what the union knew and agreed to also means\\nthat United was entitled to remove the suit to federal court\\nunder the federal-question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,\\n1441. Although the class aoempted to frame a complaint re-\\nlying entirely on state law, the complaint concerns collective\\nbargaining regulated by federal law. That brings into play a\\ndoctrine misleadingly called “complete preemption,” but\\nperhaps beoer labeled as a rule that when federal law com-\\npletely occupies a field any claim within that scope rests on\\nfederal law, no maoer how a plaintiff tries to frame the com-\\nplaint. See Franchise Tax Board v. Construction Laborers Vaca-\\ntion Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 23–24 (1983); Lehmann v. Brown, 230\\nF.3d 916, 919–20 (7th Cir. 2000); Hughes, 634 F.3d at 393.\\n If we are wrong about how the Railway Labor Act affects\\ncollective bargaining over fingerprinting in the workplace,\\nthen the doctrine of complete preemption would not author-\\nize removal of the suit against United. So, just in case, we\\nadd that the Class Action Fairness Act probably authorized\\nthe removal—probably, but not certainly.\\n A “class action” as defined in 28 U.S.C. §1332(d)(1) may\\nbe removed from state to federal court. 28 U.S.C. §1453(b).\\nSection 1332(d) creates federal jurisdiction if a class suit has\\nan amount in controversy exceeding $5 million and at least\\none member of the class has a citizenship different from that\\nof the defendants. Given the size of the class (more than\\n4,000 workers in Illinois alone use fingerprints to clock in\\nand out) and the penalties provided by state law, the contro-\\nversy exceeds $5 million. 740 ILCS 14/20. United is a Dela-\\nware corporation with its principal place of business in Illi-\\nnois, so if even one person who works for United in Illinois,\\nuses fingerprints to clock in and out, and is a citizen of any\\n\\f12 Nos. 18-3476 & 19-1785\\n\\nstate other than Delaware or Illinois, the requirement of min-\\nimal diversity is met. It seems likely to us that at least one\\nperson domiciled in southern Wisconsin or northwest Indi-\\nana works for United at O’Hare Airport, which is in com-\\nmuting distance from both states. But, for reasons that Unit-\\ned has not explained, its notice of removal does not assert\\nthis. Surely United knows where its workers live, and it may\\neven know their domicile (which is not always the state of\\nresidence), but it did not put that information in its notice of\\nremoval, which is therefore deficient.\\n The class representative tells us that he wants the class\\nlimited to citizens of Illinois. It is far from clear that this is\\nappropriate. The state law applies to private entities that col-\\nlect biometric data in Illinois; the statute does not purport to\\nexclude people who work in Illinois, provide biometric data\\nin Illinois, but are domiciled in other states. Nor is it clear\\nthat the class was so limited on the date of removal—and\\npost-removal amendments to a complaint or other papers do\\nnot eliminate jurisdiction proper at the time of removal. See\\nRockwell International Corp. v. United States, 549 U.S. 457, 473–\\n74 & n.6 (2007). Still, the shortcoming in United’s allegations\\nof citizenship remains as a potential obstacle.\\n After these problems were pointed out at oral argument,\\nUnited filed a jurisdictional supplement, invoking 28 U.S.C.\\n§1653. In addition to wrongly supposing that the suit chal-\\nlenges its employment practices nationwide—which is not\\npossible, as the state statute is limited to Illinois—the sup-\\nplemental filing continues to refer to the “residence” rather\\nthan the “citizenship” of United’s Illinois workforce.\\n Given our conclusion that the federal-question jurisdic-\\ntion supports removal, we need not remand for the district\\n\\fNos. 18-3476 & 19-1785 13\\n\\ncourt to explore the question whether, on the date the case\\nwas removed, one class member was a citizen of Wisconsin\\nor Indiana, or conceivably some third state other than Illinois\\nor Delaware—say, a citizen of California temporarily de-\\ntailed to work at O’Hare.\\n In Miller v. Southwest Airlines, No. 18-3476, the judg-\\nment of the district court is affirmed. In Johnson v. United Air-\\nlines, No. 19-1785, the judgment is vacated, and the case is\\nremanded with instructions to refer the parties’ dispute to an\\nadjustment board.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2580,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4629449,"string":"4,629,449"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"James Mollet v. City of Greenfield"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-06-13"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-3685"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before BAUER, MANION, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"William Joseph Bauer\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\nNo. 18-3685\\n\\nJAMES A. MOLLET,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n\\n v.\\n\\n\\nCITY OF GREENFIELD,\\n Defendant-Appellee.\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Eastern District of Wisconsin.\\n No. 2:16-cv-01145-LA — Lynn Adelman, Judge.\\n\\n\\n\\n ARGUED MAY 23, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 13, 2019\\n\\n\\n Before BAUER, MANION, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\\n BAUER, Circuit Judge. In this case we must decide whether\\nJames Mollet’s complaint about a racially charged incident was\\nthe but-for cause of his constructive discharge. For the reasons\\nbelow, we answer in the negative and affirm the decision of the\\ndistrict court.\\n\\f2 No. 18-3685\\n\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n James Mollet began working as a firefighter for the Green-\\nfield Fire Department in 1995. The Greenfield Fire Department\\nhad three eight-hour shifts each day and one battalion chief\\nsupervised each. Mollet rose through the ranks of the fire\\ndepartment and became a battalion chief in 2009.\\n In November 2011, John Cohn was appointed chief of the\\ndepartment and George Weber assistant chief. Mollet and\\nCohn were friendly before he was appointed chief, but\\nfollowing the appointment phone calls and text messages\\nbetween the two ceased. The relationship was further strained\\nbecause Mollet felt Cohn’s actions as chief were inconsistent\\nwith the vision for the department Mollet and Cohn discussed\\nprior to Cohn’s promotion.\\n With that we move to the incident that underpins the\\ntheory of Mollet’s case. At the end of each shift firefighters\\nstow their gear and bedding and when one fails to do so, other\\nfirefighters sometimes prank the offender. On February 17,\\n2012, firefighter Cesar Hernandez forgot to stow some of his\\ngear. The firefighters in the following shift hung the items from\\nthe ceiling and posted a paper sign with a Mexican flag printed\\non it with the words “Border Patrol” written beneath it.\\nHernandez did not file a complaint after the incident, but\\nanother firefighter who found the incident discriminatory\\nreported it to her superior officer, who reported the incident to\\nMollet.\\n Mollet emailed Cohn and Weber later that evening and\\ninformed them of the incident. Weber replied:\\n\\fNo. 18-3685 3\\n\\n Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I\\n agree with you 100% that this crosses the line of\\n firehouse hazing. Could you do some investigat-\\n ing into this incident and report any findings\\n back to me. This type of behavior should not\\n and will not be tolerated. Please let me know\\n what you find out.\\nMollet indicated he would rather not investigate the incident\\nhimself, but Cohn emailed that Mollet should investigate\\nbecause Cohn did not want to hand the issue over to those\\nunder whose watch it may have occurred.\\n An individual eventually took responsibility for the\\nincident and four individuals were disciplined—one lost a day\\nof vacation and three received verbal reprimands.\\n In the following months Cohn and Weber were critical of\\nMollet’s performance. In March 2012, a month after the\\nincident, Cohn and Weber criticized Mollet’s performance in\\nchecking off probationary firefighters on certain tasks. On\\nApril 12, 2012, Weber sent an email critical of Mollet’s leader-\\nship skills. The following day, Weber informed Mollet that he\\nwould be taking over the lead on rapid intervention team\\ntraining. Mollet was later removed from his position oversee-\\ning the firefighter internship program after a former intern\\nimproperly listed the fire department as a former employer.\\n On August 10, 2012, Cohn and Weber met with Mollet,\\ncriticized his communication skills, and asserted that he had\\nbeen critical of Weber and Cohn with his fellow firefighters.\\nOn August 31, 2012, Cohn criticized Mollet for issuing com-\\nmendation letters to public works employees without notifying\\n\\f4 No. 18-3685\\n\\nhim. In November 2012, Cohn criticized Mollet because an\\nEMT he had trained failed to notify the police of a patient’s\\ninjuries when it appeared they were the result of domestic\\nviolence. Cohn also criticized Mollet’s leadership and told him\\nin a meeting on November 15 that he needed to change. He\\nalso informed Mollet that it may be too late for him to change\\nand that he might be demoted or reassigned.\\n The following month, Mollet applied for a position in\\nMenomonee Falls. He indicated in his application that he\\ndesired an opportunity to take on challenges their fire depart-\\nment presented with its unique structure and potential\\nupgrade of its emergency medical services to the paramedic\\nlevel. Mollet received a conditional offer of employment from\\nMenomonee Falls on February 4, 2013. On February 8, Mollet\\nmet with Cohn and Weber and they indicated that he would be\\ndemoted if he did not take the position in Menomonee Falls.\\n On February 19, 2013, Mollet told Weber he was going to\\naccept the offer from Menomonee Falls which was contingent\\nupon his passing a physical and psychological exam. Mollet\\nreceived a letter from Cohn accepting Mollet’s resignation;\\nMollet responded stating he would not resign until the\\ncontingencies of his future employment were met, but on\\nFebruary 28 Cohn responded that Mollet’s employment had\\nterminated on February 24. Mollet was ultimately placed on\\npaid leave until he submitted his letter of resignation on\\nMarch 23, 2013, and began his employment with Menomonee\\nFalls on March 25.\\n Mollet filed a complaint in federal court on August 25, 2016,\\nalleging he was retaliated against for opposing discrimination\\n\\fNo. 18-3685 5\\n\\nin the workplace. The gravamen of the complaint is that Mollet\\nwas treated poorly and forced to resign as retaliation for\\ncomplaining about the Hernandez incident. The defendants\\nmoved for summary judgment and the district court referred\\nthe case to a magistrate judge for a report and recommenda-\\ntion. The magistrate judge recommended the motion be\\ngranted and the decision was adopted in toto by the district\\ncourt. The court found summary judgment was appropriate\\nbecause no reasonable trier of fact could find that reporting the\\nHernandez incident was the but-for cause of his constructive\\ndischarge. Because we agree, we affirm.\\n II. DISCUSSION\\n Summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no\\ngenuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is\\nentitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).\\nWe review a district court’s grant of summary judgment\\nde novo and construe all facts and draw all reasonable infer-\\nences in favor of the nonmoving party. Levitin v. Nw. Cmty.\\nHosp., 923 F.3d 499 (7th Cir. 2019).\\n Title VII prohibits employers from retaliating against\\nemployees for complaining about discrimination. 42 U.S.C.\\n§ 2000e-3(a). Mollet argues that the Greenfield Fire Department\\nretaliated against him for complaining about the discrimina-\\ntory incident involving Hernandez. To establish a prima facie\\ncase of retaliation under Title VII, Mollet must show: (1) he\\nengaged in a statutorily protected activity, (2) his employer\\ntook a materially adverse action against him, and (3) there is a\\ncausal link between the protected activity and the adverse\\naction. Robinson v. Perales, 894 F.3d 818, 830 (7th Cir. 2018). The\\n\\f6 No. 18-3685\\n\\ndistrict court found that Mollet carried his burden on the first\\ntwo elements, but failed to provide evidence that would lead\\na reasonable jury to find a causal connection. Because we\\nagree, we will address only the issue of causation.\\n Mollet asserts the conditions at the fire department rapidly\\ndeteriorated after he complained about the Hernandez\\nincident. In Mollet’s opinion, this shows complaining was a\\nbut-for cause of his constructive discharge, implying that\\nseveral but-for causes may contribute to an adverse employ-\\nment action. In crafting this argument, Mollet misconstrues the\\nSupreme Court’s holding in University of Texas Southwestern\\nMedical Center v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338, 362 (2013), as well as a\\nfootnote from this Court’s opinion in Carlson v. CSX Transporta-\\ntion Inc., 758 F.3d 819, 828 n.1 (7th Cir. 2014).\\n In Nassar, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that the\\ncausation requirement in Title VII retaliation claims merely\\nrequires that plaintiffs show the protected activity was a\\n“motivating factor” in a decision to retaliate against the\\nemployee. 570 U.S. at 354. The Court cited Gross v. FBL\\nFinancial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (2009), which held similar\\nlanguage in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act\\nwarranted a finding of but-for causation. Id. at 350 (citing\\nGross, 557 U.S. at 176). The Court noted that Gross held that “an\\nemployer took adverse action because of age meant that age\\nwas the reason that the employer decided to act, or, in other\\nwords, that age was the but-for cause of the employer’s\\ndecision.” Id. (emphasis added and internal quotation marks\\nomitted). The dissent pointed out that “[w]hen more than one\\nfactor contributes to a plaintiff’s injury, but-for causation is\\nproblematic” because there can only be one but-for cause of an\\n\\fNo. 18-3685 7\\n\\naction. Id. at 384. (Ginsburg, J., dissenting). “When an event is\\n‘overdetermined,’ i.e., when two forces create an injury each\\nalone would be sufficient to cause, modern tort law permits the\\nplaintiff to prevail upon showing that either sufficient condi-\\ntion created the harm.” Id. (Ginsburg, J., dissenting) (citing\\nRestatement (Third) of Torts § 27, at 376–77). The Nassar\\nmajority did not imagine a regime where plaintiff could merely\\nestablish a but-for cause: “the proper conclusion here … is that\\nTitle VII retaliation claims require proof that the desire to\\nretaliate was the but-for cause of the challenged employment\\naction.” Id. at 352 (emphasis added).\\n Our opinion in Carlson is not contrary. In Carlson, we\\nmerely explained that factors other than the protected activity\\ncould contribute to bringing about an adverse action, but a\\nplaintiff still must prove the protected activity was the but-for\\ncause of the adverse action—that “the adverse action would\\nnot have happened without the activity.” 758 F.3d 819, 828 n.1\\n(7th Cir. 2014). Thus, the question in this case is not, as the\\nplaintiffs put it, whether Mollet complaining about the Her-\\nnandez incident was a but-for cause of the adverse action,\\nrather whether the protected activity was the but-for cause of\\nthe adverse action. Heath v. Indianapolis Fire Dep’t, 889 F.3d\\n872, 874 (7th Cir. 2018). In other words, would Mollet have\\nnot been constructively discharged if he did not complain\\nabout the Hernandez incident. Robinson, 894 F.3d at 834.\\n Mollet acknowledged during his deposition that he was\\nmiserable at work once Cohn became chief in November 2011,\\nthree months before the Hernandez incident occurred. As\\nnoted above, communication ceased between Cohn and Mollet\\nshortly after Cohn became chief and before the Hernandez\\n\\f8 No. 18-3685\\n\\nincident. Additionally, Mollet was told by members of his\\nbattalion that management was monitoring his performance\\nbefore the Hernandez incident. Cohn’s criticism also began\\nbefore the Hernandez incident—he called out Mollet for failing\\nto renew his EMT license.\\n As the district court noted, there is also evidence in the\\nrecord that Cohn and Weber both responded promptly and\\npositively to Mollet’s complaint about the Hernandez incident\\nand agreed that the conduct was unacceptable. Cohn and\\nWeber disciplined four individuals after the investigation was\\ncomplete. Mollet argues that Cohn and Weber were actually\\nfrustrated that Mollet complained about the incident and their\\nresponse, insistence on an investigation, and eventual disci-\\npline of several firefighters was pretextual. In support of this\\nargument Mollet cites evidence in the record that indicates\\nWeber knew of the incident before Mollet reported it. This,\\nMollet argues, shows that Weber and Cohn planned to do\\nnothing until Mollet complained. But there is no evidence in\\nthe record that Cohn or Weber disagreed with Mollet or\\nconsidered the issue unworthy of investigation. Nor is there\\nevidence that Cohn or Weber were displeased that Mollet\\nbrought the issue to their attention. The mere fact that they\\nmay have known about the incident before Mollet complained\\nis not evidence that the entire investigation and discipline was\\npretextual. See Boss v. Castro, 816 F.3d 910, 917 (7th Cir. 2016)\\n(holding that “circumstantial evidence must point directly to\\na discriminatory reason for the employer’s action “ and “a\\nplaintiff’s subjective beliefs are insufficient to create a genuine\\nissue of material fact”). A reasonable jury could not conclude\\nas much without engaging in speculation.\\n\\fNo. 18-3685 9\\n\\n Mollet also argues the timing of Cohn and Weber’s criticism\\nwas suspicious because it began less than a month after the\\nHernandez incident and continued through his constructive\\ndischarge nearly a year later. But these events have little in\\ncommon other than the fact that they occurred after the\\nHernandez incident. There is nothing that connects them to the\\nHernandez incident and no evidence indicating that the\\ncomplaints about Mollet were related to any goal other than\\nimproving his job performance. Without more, this evidence\\nprovides little support for Mollet’s causation argument. Gracia\\nv. SigmaTron International, Inc., 842 F.3d 1010, 1021 (7th Cir.\\n2016) (noting that “suspicious timing alone is rarely enough to\\ncreate an inference of retaliatory motive”).\\n Thus, there is no evidence presented by the plaintiff that\\ncould cause a reasonable juror to find that but-for Mollet\\ncomplaining about the Hernandez incident, Cohn and Weber\\nwould not have criticized Mollet for these potential deficien-\\ncies in his performance. Furthermore, there is substantial\\nevidence that Mollet’s relationship with Weber and Cohn was\\nstrained and Cohn had demonstrated a skepticism regarding\\nthe sufficiency of Mollet’s performance before the Hernandez\\nincident occurred. Because a reasonable jury could not find the\\ncausation required in a Title VII retaliation case based on the\\nevidence in the record, we affirm the district court.\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n Considering all of the above, we affirm the district court’s\\ndecision to grant summary judgment in favor of defendant.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4406702/\", \"author_raw\": \"William Joseph Bauer\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"BAUER"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"MANION"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"BRENNAN"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"BAUER\": \", Circuit\", \"MANION\": \", Circuit\", \"BRENNAN\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4629449/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":6,"string":"6"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: James Mollet v. City of Greenfield\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-06-13\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\nNo. 18-3685\n\nJAMES A. MOLLET,\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\n\n v.\n\n\nCITY OF GREENFIELD,\n Defendant-Appellee.\n\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Eastern District of Wisconsin.\n No. 2:16-cv-01145-LA — Lynn Adelman, Judge.\n\n\n\n ARGUED MAY 23, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 13, 2019\n\n\n Before BAUER, MANION, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\n BAUER, Circuit Judge. In this case we must decide whether\nJames Mollet’s complaint about a racially charged incident was\nthe but-for cause of his constructive discharge. For the reasons\nbelow, we answer in the negative and affirm the decision of the\ndistrict court.\n\f2 No. 18-3685\n\n I. BACKGROUND\n James Mollet began working as a firefighter for the Green-\nfield Fire Department in 1995. The Greenfield Fire Department\nhad three eight-hour shifts each day and one battalion chief\nsupervised each. Mollet rose through the ranks of the fire\ndepartment and became a battalion chief in 2009.\n In November 2011, John Cohn was appointed chief of the\ndepartment and George Weber assistant chief. Mollet and\nCohn were friendly before he was appointed chief, but\nfollowing the appointment phone calls and text messages\nbetween the two ceased. The relationship was further strained\nbecause Mollet felt Cohn’s actions as chief were inconsistent\nwith the vision for the department Mollet and Cohn discussed\nprior to Cohn’s promotion.\n With that we move to the incident that underpins the\ntheory of Mollet’s case. At the end of each shift firefighters\nstow their gear and bedding and when one fails to do so, other\nfirefighters sometimes prank the offender. On February 17,\n2012, firefighter Cesar Hernandez forgot to stow some of his\ngear. The firefighters in the following shift hung the items from\nthe ceiling and posted a paper sign with a Mexican flag printed\non it with the words “Border Patrol” written beneath it.\nHernandez did not file a complaint after the incident, but\nanother firefighter who found the incident discriminatory\nreported it to her superior officer, who reported the incident to\nMollet.\n Mollet emailed Cohn and Weber later that evening and\ninformed them of the incident. Weber replied:\n\fNo. 18-3685 3\n\n Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I\n agree with you 100% that this crosses the line of\n firehouse hazing. Could you do some investigat-\n ing into this incident and report any findings\n back to me. This type of behavior should not\n and will not be tolerated. Please let me know\n what you find out.\nMollet indicated he would rather not investigate the incident\nhimself, but Cohn emailed that Mollet should investigate\nbecause Cohn did not want to hand the issue over to those\nunder whose watch it may have occurred.\n An individual eventually took responsibility for the\nincident and four individuals were disciplined—one lost a day\nof vacation and three received verbal reprimands.\n In the following months Cohn and Weber were critical of\nMollet’s performance. In March 2012, a month after the\nincident, Cohn and Weber criticized Mollet’s performance in\nchecking off probationary firefighters on certain tasks. On\nApril 12, 2012, Weber sent an email critical of Mollet’s leader-\nship skills. The following day, Weber informed Mollet that he\nwould be taking over the lead on rapid intervention team\ntraining. Mollet was later removed from his position oversee-\ning the firefighter internship program after a former intern\nimproperly listed the fire department as a former employer.\n On August 10, 2012, Cohn and Weber met with Mollet,\ncriticized his communication skills, and asserted that he had\nbeen critical of Weber and Cohn with his fellow firefighters.\nOn August 31, 2012, Cohn criticized Mollet for issuing com-\nmendation letters to public works employees without notifying\n\f4 No. 18-3685\n\nhim. In November 2012, Cohn criticized Mollet because an\nEMT he had trained failed to notify the police of a patient’s\ninjuries when it appeared they were the result of domestic\nviolence. Cohn also criticized Mollet’s leadership and told him\nin a meeting on November 15 that he needed to change. He\nalso informed Mollet that it may be too late for him to change\nand that he might be demoted or reassigned.\n The following month, Mollet applied for a position in\nMenomonee Falls. He indicated in his application that he\ndesired an opportunity to take on challenges their fire depart-\nment presented with its unique structure and potential\nupgrade of its emergency medical services to the paramedic\nlevel. Mollet received a conditional offer of employment from\nMenomonee Falls on February 4, 2013. On February 8, Mollet\nmet with Cohn and Weber and they indicated that he would be\ndemoted if he did not take the position in Menomonee Falls.\n On February 19, 2013, Mollet told Weber he was going to\naccept the offer from Menomonee Falls which was contingent\nupon his passing a physical and psychological exam. Mollet\nreceived a letter from Cohn accepting Mollet’s resignation;\nMollet responded stating he would not resign until the\ncontingencies of his future employment were met, but on\nFebruary 28 Cohn responded that Mollet’s employment had\nterminated on February 24. Mollet was ultimately placed on\npaid leave until he submitted his letter of resignation on\nMarch 23, 2013, and began his employment with Menomonee\nFalls on March 25.\n Mollet filed a complaint in federal court on August 25, 2016,\nalleging he was retaliated against for opposing discrimination\n\fNo. 18-3685 5\n\nin the workplace. The gravamen of the complaint is that Mollet\nwas treated poorly and forced to resign as retaliation for\ncomplaining about the Hernandez incident. The defendants\nmoved for summary judgment and the district court referred\nthe case to a magistrate judge for a report and recommenda-\ntion. The magistrate judge recommended the motion be\ngranted and the decision was adopted in toto by the district\ncourt. The court found summary judgment was appropriate\nbecause no reasonable trier of fact could find that reporting the\nHernandez incident was the but-for cause of his constructive\ndischarge. Because we agree, we affirm.\n II. DISCUSSION\n Summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no\ngenuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is\nentitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).\nWe review a district court’s grant of summary judgment\nde novo and construe all facts and draw all reasonable infer-\nences in favor of the nonmoving party. Levitin v. Nw. Cmty.\nHosp., 923 F.3d 499 (7th Cir. 2019).\n Title VII prohibits employers from retaliating against\nemployees for complaining about discrimination. 42 U.S.C.\n§ 2000e-3(a). Mollet argues that the Greenfield Fire Department\nretaliated against him for complaining about the discrimina-\ntory incident involving Hernandez. To establish a prima facie\ncase of retaliation under Title VII, Mollet must show: (1) he\nengaged in a statutorily protected activity, (2) his employer\ntook a materially adverse action against him, and (3) there is a\ncausal link between the protected activity and the adverse\naction. Robinson v. Perales, 894 F.3d 818, 830 (7th Cir. 2018). The\n\f6 No. 18-3685\n\ndistrict court found that Mollet carried his burden on the first\ntwo elements, but failed to provide evidence that would lead\na reasonable jury to find a causal connection. Because we\nagree, we will address only the issue of causation.\n Mollet asserts the conditions at the fire department rapidly\ndeteriorated after he complained about the Hernandez\nincident. In Mollet’s opinion, this shows complaining was a\nbut-for cause of his constructive discharge, implying that\nseveral but-for causes may contribute to an adverse employ-\nment action. In crafting this argument, Mollet misconstrues the\nSupreme Court’s holding in University of Texas Southwestern\nMedical Center v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338, 362 (2013), as well as a\nfootnote from this Court’s opinion in Carlson v. CSX Transporta-\ntion Inc., 758 F.3d 819, 828 n.1 (7th Cir. 2014).\n In Nassar, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that the\ncausation requirement in Title VII retaliation claims merely\nrequires that plaintiffs show the protected activity was a\n“motivating factor” in a decision to retaliate against the\nemployee. 570 U.S. at 354. The Court cited Gross v. FBL\nFinancial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (2009), which held similar\nlanguage in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act\nwarranted a finding of but-for causation. Id. at 350 (citing\nGross, 557 U.S. at 176). The Court noted that Gross held that “an\nemployer took adverse action because of age meant that age\nwas the reason that the employer decided to act, or, in other\nwords, that age was the but-for cause of the employer’s\ndecision.” Id. (emphasis added and internal quotation marks\nomitted). The dissent pointed out that “[w]hen more than one\nfactor contributes to a plaintiff’s injury, but-for causation is\nproblematic” because there can only be one but-for cause of an\n\fNo. 18-3685 7\n\naction. Id. at 384. (Ginsburg, J., dissenting). “When an event is\n‘overdetermined,’ i.e., when two forces create an injury each\nalone would be sufficient to cause, modern tort law permits the\nplaintiff to prevail upon showing that either sufficient condi-\ntion created the harm.” Id. (Ginsburg, J., dissenting) (citing\nRestatement (Third) of Torts § 27, at 376–77). The Nassar\nmajority did not imagine a regime where plaintiff could merely\nestablish a but-for cause: “the proper conclusion here … is that\nTitle VII retaliation claims require proof that the desire to\nretaliate was the but-for cause of the challenged employment\naction.” Id. at 352 (emphasis added).\n Our opinion in Carlson is not contrary. In Carlson, we\nmerely explained that factors other than the protected activity\ncould contribute to bringing about an adverse action, but a\nplaintiff still must prove the protected activity was the but-for\ncause of the adverse action—that “the adverse action would\nnot have happened without the activity.” 758 F.3d 819, 828 n.1\n(7th Cir. 2014). Thus, the question in this case is not, as the\nplaintiffs put it, whether Mollet complaining about the Her-\nnandez incident was a but-for cause of the adverse action,\nrather whether the protected activity was the but-for cause of\nthe adverse action. Heath v. Indianapolis Fire Dep’t, 889 F.3d\n872, 874 (7th Cir. 2018). In other words, would Mollet have\nnot been constructively discharged if he did not complain\nabout the Hernandez incident. Robinson, 894 F.3d at 834.\n Mollet acknowledged during his deposition that he was\nmiserable at work once Cohn became chief in November 2011,\nthree months before the Hernandez incident occurred. As\nnoted above, communication ceased between Cohn and Mollet\nshortly after Cohn became chief and before the Hernandez\n\f8 No. 18-3685\n\nincident. Additionally, Mollet was told by members of his\nbattalion that management was monitoring his performance\nbefore the Hernandez incident. Cohn’s criticism also began\nbefore the Hernandez incident—he called out Mollet for failing\nto renew his EMT license.\n As the district court noted, there is also evidence in the\nrecord that Cohn and Weber both responded promptly and\npositively to Mollet’s complaint about the Hernandez incident\nand agreed that the conduct was unacceptable. Cohn and\nWeber disciplined four individuals after the investigation was\ncomplete. Mollet argues that Cohn and Weber were actually\nfrustrated that Mollet complained about the incident and their\nresponse, insistence on an investigation, and eventual disci-\npline of several firefighters was pretextual. In support of this\nargument Mollet cites evidence in the record that indicates\nWeber knew of the incident before Mollet reported it. This,\nMollet argues, shows that Weber and Cohn planned to do\nnothing until Mollet complained. But there is no evidence in\nthe record that Cohn or Weber disagreed with Mollet or\nconsidered the issue unworthy of investigation. Nor is there\nevidence that Cohn or Weber were displeased that Mollet\nbrought the issue to their attention. The mere fact that they\nmay have known about the incident before Mollet complained\nis not evidence that the entire investigation and discipline was\npretextual. See Boss v. Castro, 816 F.3d 910, 917 (7th Cir. 2016)\n(holding that “circumstantial evidence must point directly to\na discriminatory reason for the employer’s action “ and “a\nplaintiff’s subjective beliefs are insufficient to create a genuine\nissue of material fact”). A reasonable jury could not conclude\nas much without engaging in speculation.\n\fNo. 18-3685 9\n\n Mollet also argues the timing of Cohn and Weber’s criticism\nwas suspicious because it began less than a month after the\nHernandez incident and continued through his constructive\ndischarge nearly a year later. But these events have little in\ncommon other than the fact that they occurred after the\nHernandez incident. There is nothing that connects them to the\nHernandez incident and no evidence indicating that the\ncomplaints about Mollet were related to any goal other than\nimproving his job performance. Without more, this evidence\nprovides little support for Mollet’s causation argument. Gracia\nv. SigmaTron International, Inc., 842 F.3d 1010, 1021 (7th Cir.\n2016) (noting that “suspicious timing alone is rarely enough to\ncreate an inference of retaliatory motive”).\n Thus, there is no evidence presented by the plaintiff that\ncould cause a reasonable juror to find that but-for Mollet\ncomplaining about the Hernandez incident, Cohn and Weber\nwould not have criticized Mollet for these potential deficien-\ncies in his performance. Furthermore, there is substantial\nevidence that Mollet’s relationship with Weber and Cohn was\nstrained and Cohn had demonstrated a skepticism regarding\nthe sufficiency of Mollet’s performance before the Hernandez\nincident occurred. Because a reasonable jury could not find the\ncausation required in a Title VII retaliation case based on the\nevidence in the record, we affirm the district court.\n III. CONCLUSION\n Considering all of the above, we affirm the district court’s\ndecision to grant summary judgment in favor of defendant.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: James Mollet v. City of Greenfield\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-06-13\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\nNo. 18-3685\\n\\nJAMES A. MOLLET,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n\\n v.\\n\\n\\nCITY OF GREENFIELD,\\n Defendant-Appellee.\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Eastern District of Wisconsin.\\n No. 2:16-cv-01145-LA — Lynn Adelman, Judge.\\n\\n\\n\\n ARGUED MAY 23, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 13, 2019\\n\\n\\n Before BAUER, MANION, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\\n BAUER, Circuit Judge. In this case we must decide whether\\nJames Mollet’s complaint about a racially charged incident was\\nthe but-for cause of his constructive discharge. For the reasons\\nbelow, we answer in the negative and affirm the decision of the\\ndistrict court.\\n\\f2 No. 18-3685\\n\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n James Mollet began working as a firefighter for the Green-\\nfield Fire Department in 1995. The Greenfield Fire Department\\nhad three eight-hour shifts each day and one battalion chief\\nsupervised each. Mollet rose through the ranks of the fire\\ndepartment and became a battalion chief in 2009.\\n In November 2011, John Cohn was appointed chief of the\\ndepartment and George Weber assistant chief. Mollet and\\nCohn were friendly before he was appointed chief, but\\nfollowing the appointment phone calls and text messages\\nbetween the two ceased. The relationship was further strained\\nbecause Mollet felt Cohn’s actions as chief were inconsistent\\nwith the vision for the department Mollet and Cohn discussed\\nprior to Cohn’s promotion.\\n With that we move to the incident that underpins the\\ntheory of Mollet’s case. At the end of each shift firefighters\\nstow their gear and bedding and when one fails to do so, other\\nfirefighters sometimes prank the offender. On February 17,\\n2012, firefighter Cesar Hernandez forgot to stow some of his\\ngear. The firefighters in the following shift hung the items from\\nthe ceiling and posted a paper sign with a Mexican flag printed\\non it with the words “Border Patrol” written beneath it.\\nHernandez did not file a complaint after the incident, but\\nanother firefighter who found the incident discriminatory\\nreported it to her superior officer, who reported the incident to\\nMollet.\\n Mollet emailed Cohn and Weber later that evening and\\ninformed them of the incident. Weber replied:\\n\\fNo. 18-3685 3\\n\\n Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I\\n agree with you 100% that this crosses the line of\\n firehouse hazing. Could you do some investigat-\\n ing into this incident and report any findings\\n back to me. This type of behavior should not\\n and will not be tolerated. Please let me know\\n what you find out.\\nMollet indicated he would rather not investigate the incident\\nhimself, but Cohn emailed that Mollet should investigate\\nbecause Cohn did not want to hand the issue over to those\\nunder whose watch it may have occurred.\\n An individual eventually took responsibility for the\\nincident and four individuals were disciplined—one lost a day\\nof vacation and three received verbal reprimands.\\n In the following months Cohn and Weber were critical of\\nMollet’s performance. In March 2012, a month after the\\nincident, Cohn and Weber criticized Mollet’s performance in\\nchecking off probationary firefighters on certain tasks. On\\nApril 12, 2012, Weber sent an email critical of Mollet’s leader-\\nship skills. The following day, Weber informed Mollet that he\\nwould be taking over the lead on rapid intervention team\\ntraining. Mollet was later removed from his position oversee-\\ning the firefighter internship program after a former intern\\nimproperly listed the fire department as a former employer.\\n On August 10, 2012, Cohn and Weber met with Mollet,\\ncriticized his communication skills, and asserted that he had\\nbeen critical of Weber and Cohn with his fellow firefighters.\\nOn August 31, 2012, Cohn criticized Mollet for issuing com-\\nmendation letters to public works employees without notifying\\n\\f4 No. 18-3685\\n\\nhim. In November 2012, Cohn criticized Mollet because an\\nEMT he had trained failed to notify the police of a patient’s\\ninjuries when it appeared they were the result of domestic\\nviolence. Cohn also criticized Mollet’s leadership and told him\\nin a meeting on November 15 that he needed to change. He\\nalso informed Mollet that it may be too late for him to change\\nand that he might be demoted or reassigned.\\n The following month, Mollet applied for a position in\\nMenomonee Falls. He indicated in his application that he\\ndesired an opportunity to take on challenges their fire depart-\\nment presented with its unique structure and potential\\nupgrade of its emergency medical services to the paramedic\\nlevel. Mollet received a conditional offer of employment from\\nMenomonee Falls on February 4, 2013. On February 8, Mollet\\nmet with Cohn and Weber and they indicated that he would be\\ndemoted if he did not take the position in Menomonee Falls.\\n On February 19, 2013, Mollet told Weber he was going to\\naccept the offer from Menomonee Falls which was contingent\\nupon his passing a physical and psychological exam. Mollet\\nreceived a letter from Cohn accepting Mollet’s resignation;\\nMollet responded stating he would not resign until the\\ncontingencies of his future employment were met, but on\\nFebruary 28 Cohn responded that Mollet’s employment had\\nterminated on February 24. Mollet was ultimately placed on\\npaid leave until he submitted his letter of resignation on\\nMarch 23, 2013, and began his employment with Menomonee\\nFalls on March 25.\\n Mollet filed a complaint in federal court on August 25, 2016,\\nalleging he was retaliated against for opposing discrimination\\n\\fNo. 18-3685 5\\n\\nin the workplace. The gravamen of the complaint is that Mollet\\nwas treated poorly and forced to resign as retaliation for\\ncomplaining about the Hernandez incident. The defendants\\nmoved for summary judgment and the district court referred\\nthe case to a magistrate judge for a report and recommenda-\\ntion. The magistrate judge recommended the motion be\\ngranted and the decision was adopted in toto by the district\\ncourt. The court found summary judgment was appropriate\\nbecause no reasonable trier of fact could find that reporting the\\nHernandez incident was the but-for cause of his constructive\\ndischarge. Because we agree, we affirm.\\n II. DISCUSSION\\n Summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no\\ngenuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is\\nentitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).\\nWe review a district court’s grant of summary judgment\\nde novo and construe all facts and draw all reasonable infer-\\nences in favor of the nonmoving party. Levitin v. Nw. Cmty.\\nHosp., 923 F.3d 499 (7th Cir. 2019).\\n Title VII prohibits employers from retaliating against\\nemployees for complaining about discrimination. 42 U.S.C.\\n§ 2000e-3(a). Mollet argues that the Greenfield Fire Department\\nretaliated against him for complaining about the discrimina-\\ntory incident involving Hernandez. To establish a prima facie\\ncase of retaliation under Title VII, Mollet must show: (1) he\\nengaged in a statutorily protected activity, (2) his employer\\ntook a materially adverse action against him, and (3) there is a\\ncausal link between the protected activity and the adverse\\naction. Robinson v. Perales, 894 F.3d 818, 830 (7th Cir. 2018). The\\n\\f6 No. 18-3685\\n\\ndistrict court found that Mollet carried his burden on the first\\ntwo elements, but failed to provide evidence that would lead\\na reasonable jury to find a causal connection. Because we\\nagree, we will address only the issue of causation.\\n Mollet asserts the conditions at the fire department rapidly\\ndeteriorated after he complained about the Hernandez\\nincident. In Mollet’s opinion, this shows complaining was a\\nbut-for cause of his constructive discharge, implying that\\nseveral but-for causes may contribute to an adverse employ-\\nment action. In crafting this argument, Mollet misconstrues the\\nSupreme Court’s holding in University of Texas Southwestern\\nMedical Center v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338, 362 (2013), as well as a\\nfootnote from this Court’s opinion in Carlson v. CSX Transporta-\\ntion Inc., 758 F.3d 819, 828 n.1 (7th Cir. 2014).\\n In Nassar, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that the\\ncausation requirement in Title VII retaliation claims merely\\nrequires that plaintiffs show the protected activity was a\\n“motivating factor” in a decision to retaliate against the\\nemployee. 570 U.S. at 354. The Court cited Gross v. FBL\\nFinancial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (2009), which held similar\\nlanguage in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act\\nwarranted a finding of but-for causation. Id. at 350 (citing\\nGross, 557 U.S. at 176). The Court noted that Gross held that “an\\nemployer took adverse action because of age meant that age\\nwas the reason that the employer decided to act, or, in other\\nwords, that age was the but-for cause of the employer’s\\ndecision.” Id. (emphasis added and internal quotation marks\\nomitted). The dissent pointed out that “[w]hen more than one\\nfactor contributes to a plaintiff’s injury, but-for causation is\\nproblematic” because there can only be one but-for cause of an\\n\\fNo. 18-3685 7\\n\\naction. Id. at 384. (Ginsburg, J., dissenting). “When an event is\\n‘overdetermined,’ i.e., when two forces create an injury each\\nalone would be sufficient to cause, modern tort law permits the\\nplaintiff to prevail upon showing that either sufficient condi-\\ntion created the harm.” Id. (Ginsburg, J., dissenting) (citing\\nRestatement (Third) of Torts § 27, at 376–77). The Nassar\\nmajority did not imagine a regime where plaintiff could merely\\nestablish a but-for cause: “the proper conclusion here … is that\\nTitle VII retaliation claims require proof that the desire to\\nretaliate was the but-for cause of the challenged employment\\naction.” Id. at 352 (emphasis added).\\n Our opinion in Carlson is not contrary. In Carlson, we\\nmerely explained that factors other than the protected activity\\ncould contribute to bringing about an adverse action, but a\\nplaintiff still must prove the protected activity was the but-for\\ncause of the adverse action—that “the adverse action would\\nnot have happened without the activity.” 758 F.3d 819, 828 n.1\\n(7th Cir. 2014). Thus, the question in this case is not, as the\\nplaintiffs put it, whether Mollet complaining about the Her-\\nnandez incident was a but-for cause of the adverse action,\\nrather whether the protected activity was the but-for cause of\\nthe adverse action. Heath v. Indianapolis Fire Dep’t, 889 F.3d\\n872, 874 (7th Cir. 2018). In other words, would Mollet have\\nnot been constructively discharged if he did not complain\\nabout the Hernandez incident. Robinson, 894 F.3d at 834.\\n Mollet acknowledged during his deposition that he was\\nmiserable at work once Cohn became chief in November 2011,\\nthree months before the Hernandez incident occurred. As\\nnoted above, communication ceased between Cohn and Mollet\\nshortly after Cohn became chief and before the Hernandez\\n\\f8 No. 18-3685\\n\\nincident. Additionally, Mollet was told by members of his\\nbattalion that management was monitoring his performance\\nbefore the Hernandez incident. Cohn’s criticism also began\\nbefore the Hernandez incident—he called out Mollet for failing\\nto renew his EMT license.\\n As the district court noted, there is also evidence in the\\nrecord that Cohn and Weber both responded promptly and\\npositively to Mollet’s complaint about the Hernandez incident\\nand agreed that the conduct was unacceptable. Cohn and\\nWeber disciplined four individuals after the investigation was\\ncomplete. Mollet argues that Cohn and Weber were actually\\nfrustrated that Mollet complained about the incident and their\\nresponse, insistence on an investigation, and eventual disci-\\npline of several firefighters was pretextual. In support of this\\nargument Mollet cites evidence in the record that indicates\\nWeber knew of the incident before Mollet reported it. This,\\nMollet argues, shows that Weber and Cohn planned to do\\nnothing until Mollet complained. But there is no evidence in\\nthe record that Cohn or Weber disagreed with Mollet or\\nconsidered the issue unworthy of investigation. Nor is there\\nevidence that Cohn or Weber were displeased that Mollet\\nbrought the issue to their attention. The mere fact that they\\nmay have known about the incident before Mollet complained\\nis not evidence that the entire investigation and discipline was\\npretextual. See Boss v. Castro, 816 F.3d 910, 917 (7th Cir. 2016)\\n(holding that “circumstantial evidence must point directly to\\na discriminatory reason for the employer’s action “ and “a\\nplaintiff’s subjective beliefs are insufficient to create a genuine\\nissue of material fact”). A reasonable jury could not conclude\\nas much without engaging in speculation.\\n\\fNo. 18-3685 9\\n\\n Mollet also argues the timing of Cohn and Weber’s criticism\\nwas suspicious because it began less than a month after the\\nHernandez incident and continued through his constructive\\ndischarge nearly a year later. But these events have little in\\ncommon other than the fact that they occurred after the\\nHernandez incident. There is nothing that connects them to the\\nHernandez incident and no evidence indicating that the\\ncomplaints about Mollet were related to any goal other than\\nimproving his job performance. Without more, this evidence\\nprovides little support for Mollet’s causation argument. Gracia\\nv. SigmaTron International, Inc., 842 F.3d 1010, 1021 (7th Cir.\\n2016) (noting that “suspicious timing alone is rarely enough to\\ncreate an inference of retaliatory motive”).\\n Thus, there is no evidence presented by the plaintiff that\\ncould cause a reasonable juror to find that but-for Mollet\\ncomplaining about the Hernandez incident, Cohn and Weber\\nwould not have criticized Mollet for these potential deficien-\\ncies in his performance. Furthermore, there is substantial\\nevidence that Mollet’s relationship with Weber and Cohn was\\nstrained and Cohn had demonstrated a skepticism regarding\\nthe sufficiency of Mollet’s performance before the Hernandez\\nincident occurred. Because a reasonable jury could not find the\\ncausation required in a Title VII retaliation case based on the\\nevidence in the record, we affirm the district court.\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n Considering all of the above, we affirm the district court’s\\ndecision to grant summary judgment in favor of defendant.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2581,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4629545,"string":"4,629,545"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Jennifer Miller v. Southwest Airlines Company"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-06-13"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-3476"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and BAUER and EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Frank Hoover Easterbrook\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\n\\nNo. 18-3476\\nJENNIFER MILLER, SCOTT POOLE, and KEVIN ENGLUND,\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants,\\n\\n v.\\n\\nSOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.,\\n Defendant-Appellee.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 18 C 86 — Marvin E. Aspen, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\nNo. 19-1785\\nDAVID JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of a class,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n\\n v.\\n\\nUNITED AIRLINES, INC., and UNITED CONTINENTAL HOLDINGS,\\nINC.,\\n Defendants-Appellants.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 17 C 08858 — Virginia M. Kendall, Judge.\\n\\f2 Nos. 18-3476 & 19-1785\\n\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED MAY 28, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 13, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and BAUER and EASTERBROOK,\\nCircuit Judges.\\n EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. We have consolidated two\\nappeals that pose a common question: whether persons who\\ncontend that air carriers have violated state law by using bi-\\nometric identification in the workplace must present these\\ncontentions to an adjustment board under the Railway Labor\\nAct (RLA), 45 U.S.C. §§ 151–88, which applies to air carriers\\nas well as railroads. 45 U.S.C. §181. The answer is yes if the\\ncontentions amount to a “minor dispute”—that is, a dispute\\nabout the interpretation or application of a collective bar-\\ngaining agreement. 45 U.S.C. §§ 151a, 184; Hawaiian Airlines,\\nInc. v. Norris, 512 U.S. 246, 252–53 (1994). Plaintiffs insist that\\na judge should resolve their contentions, while defendants\\ncontend that resolution belongs to an adjustment board.\\n The claims in each suit arise under the Biometric Infor-\\nmation Privacy Act (BIPA), 740 ILCS 14/5 to 14/25, which Il-\\nlinois adopted in 2008. This law applies to all biometric iden-\\ntifiers, which the statute defines to include fingerprints. 740\\nILCS 14/10. Before obtaining any fingerprint, a “private enti-\\nty” must inform the subject or “the subject’s legally author-\\nized representative” in writing about several things, such as\\nthe purpose of collecting the data and how long they will be\\nkept, and obtain the consent of the subject or authorized rep-\\nresentative. 740 ILCS 14/15(b). The private entity also must\\nestablish and make available to the public a protocol for re-\\n\\fNos. 18-3476 & 19-1785 3\\n\\ntaining and handling biometric data, which must be de-\\nstroyed “when the initial purpose for collecting or obtaining\\nsuch identifiers or information has been satisfied or within 3\\nyears of the individual’s last interaction with the private en-\\ntity, whichever occurs first.” 740 ILCS 14/15(a). Sales of bio-\\nmetric information are forbidden, 740 ILCS 14/15(c), and\\ntransfers are limited, 740 ILCS 14/15(d). Private entities must\\nprotect biometric information from disclosure. 740 ILCS\\n14/15(e).\\n Both Southwest Airlines and United Airlines maintain\\ntimekeeping systems that require workers to clock in and\\nout with their fingerprints. Plaintiffs contend that the air car-\\nriers implemented these systems without their consent,\\nfailed to publish protocols, and use third-party vendors to\\nimplement the systems, which plaintiffs call a forbidden dis-\\nclosure. Southwest and United contend that the plaintiffs’\\nunions have consented—either expressly or through the col-\\nlective bargaining agreements’ management-rights clauses—\\nand that any required notice has been provided to the un-\\nions. The air carriers insist that, to the extent these maoers\\nare disputed, an adjustment board rather than a judge must\\nresolve the difference—and that if state law gives workers\\nrights beyond those provided by federal law and collective\\nbargaining agreements, it is preempted by the Railway La-\\nbor Act.\\n The suits were assigned to different district judges.\\n Judge Aspen found that the plaintiffs have standing un-\\nder Article III but dismissed the suit against Southwest Air-\\nlines for improper venue. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3). 2018 U.S.\\nDist. LEXIS 143369 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 23, 2018). He made clear,\\nhowever, that the suit did not belong in state court or some\\n\\f4 Nos. 18-3476 & 19-1785\\n\\nother federal district court; he held, rather, that it belongs to\\nan adjustment board under the Railway Labor Act and that\\nany aoempt by Illinois to give workers rights to bypass their\\nunion (Transportation Workers Union Local 555) and deal\\ndirectly with an air carrier is preempted by federal law. Thus\\ndismissal has nothing to do with venue. See 28 U.S.C. §1391.\\n Dismissal should have been labeled either as a judgment\\non the pleadings, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c), or a dismissal for lack\\nof subject-maoer jurisdiction, as this circuit’s decisions sug-\\ngest. See, e.g., Carlson v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 758 F.3d\\n819, 824–25 (7th Cir. 2014); Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way\\nEmployees v. Norfolk Southern Ry., 745 F.3d 808 (7th Cir. 2014);\\nBrown v. Illinois Central R.R., 254 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 2001). But\\nsee, e.g., Oakey v. U.S. Airways Pilots Disability Plan, 723 F.3d\\n227 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (need to resolve a dispute under the\\nRailway Labor Act’s procedures does not imply lack of sub-\\nject-maoer jurisdiction); Emswiler v. CSX Transportation, Inc.,\\n691 F.3d 782 (6th Cir. 2012) (same). None of this circuit’s de-\\ncisions considers the effect of the Supreme Court’s modern\\nunderstanding of the difference between “jurisdiction” and\\nother kinds of rules. See Fort Bend County v. Davis, No. 18–\\n525 (U.S. June 3, 2019) (discussing the difference); Carlson,\\n758 F.3d at 831 (recognizing that this court has yet to consid-\\ner how the distinction applies to the Railway Labor Act). It is\\nunnecessary to do so here, for either a substantive or a juris-\\ndictional label ends the litigation between these parties and\\nforecloses its continuation in any other judicial forum.\\n The suit against United Airlines was filed in state court\\nand removed to federal court on two theories: federal-\\nquestion jurisdiction under the Railway Labor Act plus re-\\nmoval jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1453, part of the Class\\n\\fNos. 18-3476 & 19-1785 5\\n\\nAction Fairness Act (CAFA). Judge Kendall concluded that\\nthe subject is in the bailiwick of plaintiffs’ union (Interna-\\ntional Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers)\\nand an adjustment board; this aspect of her decision reaches\\nthe same conclusion as Judge Aspen. But Judge Kendall\\nadded that the complaint did not present a case or contro-\\nversy, because the class asserted only a bare procedural\\nright. This led her to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. 2018\\nU.S. Dist. LEXIS 127959 (N.D. Ill. July 31, 2018).\\n The class, which wants to litigate in state court, protested,\\nobserving that if there is no federal jurisdiction then the suit\\nmust be remanded. 28 U.S.C. §1447(c). Judge Kendall\\nagreed. United also complained about the initial decision.\\nObserving that the jurisdictional question had not been\\nraised or briefed by the parties, United maintained that\\nplaintiffs have standing because they allege (or at least im-\\nply) that biometric data had been transmioed outside United\\nand may have reached inappropriate hands. Judge Kendall\\nrefused to revisit that subject, however, and entered an order\\nreturning the case to state court. 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43484\\n(N.D. Ill. Mar. 18, 2019).\\n The remand of a suit removed under the Class Action\\nFairness Act is appealable with judicial permission, 28 U.S.C.\\n§1453(c)(1), and United asked us to accept its appeal. The\\nstatute makes appellate authority turn on removal under the\\nClass Action Fairness Act, not on whether the appeal pre-\\nsents an issue about the interpretation of that statute. This,\\nplus the disparate outcomes of the two suits, led us to accept\\nthe appeal even on the assumption that the only issues con-\\ncern the interaction between Illinois law and the Railway\\nLabor Act. (That assumption may be incorrect. We’ll return\\n\\f6 Nos. 18-3476 & 19-1785\\n\\nto the question how the Class Action Fairness Act applies to\\nthe removal of the suit against United.)\\n Subject-maoer jurisdiction is the first issue in any case,\\nand as far as we can see the two suits are identical in this re-\\nspect. Judge Aspen found that fingerprinted workers have\\nstanding, but Judge Kendall thought that a violation of the\\nstate statute does not cause concrete injury to anyone, so that\\nthe workers lack standing. See, e.g., Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136\\nS. Ct. 1540 (2016); Groshek v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., 865 F.3d\\n884 (7th Cir. 2017); Casillas v. Madison Avenue Associates, Inc.,\\nNo. 17-3162 (7th Cir. June 4, 2019). We disagree with Judge\\nKendall’s conclusion, for two principal reasons.\\n First, the stakes in both suits include whether the air car-\\nriers can use fingerprint identification. If the unions have not\\nconsented, or if the carriers have not provided unions with\\nrequired information, a court or adjustment board may or-\\nder a change in how workers clock in and out. The prospect\\nof a material change in workers’ terms and conditions of\\nemployment gives these suits a concrete dimension that\\nSpokeo, Groshek, and Casillas lacked. Either the discontinua-\\ntion of the practice, or the need for the air carriers to agree to\\nhigher wages to induce unions to consent, presents more\\nthan a bare procedural dispute. See Robertson v. Allied Solu-\\ntions, LLC, 902 F.3d 690, 697 (7th Cir. 2018) (“Article III’s\\nstrictures are met not only when a plaintiff complains of be-\\ning deprived of some benefit, but also when a plaintiff com-\\nplains that she was deprived of a chance to obtain a bene-\\nfit.”).\\n Second, plaintiffs assert that the air carriers are not fol-\\nlowing the statutory data-retention limit and may have used\\noutside parties to administer their timekeeping systems. The\\n\\fNos. 18-3476 & 19-1785 7\\n\\nlonger data are retained, and the more people have access,\\nthe greater the risk of disclosure (including by dissatisfied\\nemployees who misuse their access or by criminals who\\nhack into a computer system). This was Judge Aspen’s ra-\\ntionale for finding standing. 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143369 at\\n*5–10. Some employees devote time and money to safe-\\nguards against identity theft. That’s why we held in Remijas\\nv. Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, 794 F.3d 688 (7th Cir. 2015),\\nthat a suit contending that hackers obtained personal details\\npresents a case or controversy, even though the plaintiffs did\\nnot contend that their credit ratings had suffered. See also,\\ne.g., Lewert v. P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc., 819 F.3d 963 (7th\\nCir. 2016); Dieffenbach v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., 887 F.3d 826\\n(7th Cir. 2018). Because these complaints do not allege that\\nbiometric data are in the hands of malefactors, their position\\nis weaker than that of the plaintiffs in Remijas and its succes-\\nsors. We need not decide whether the risk of disclosure itself\\nsuffices for standing—or whether it would be necessary to\\ntake discovery into the question whether biometric data\\nhave been released—because the first ground of standing is\\nindependently sufficient.\\n We begin with the suit against Southwest, for in that suit\\nthe plaintiffs are content to litigate in federal court. We post-\\npone the question whether the suit against United was\\nproperly removed.\\n A dispute about the interpretation or administration of a\\ncollective bargaining agreement must be resolved by an ad-\\njustment board under the Railway Labor Act. There is no\\ndoubt that Southwest has a collective bargaining agreement\\nwith the union that represents the three plaintiffs. Southwest\\nasserts that the union assented to the use of fingerprints, ei-\\n\\f8 Nos. 18-3476 & 19-1785\\n\\nther expressly on being notified before the practice was insti-\\ntuted or through a management-rights clause. And there can\\nbe no doubt that how workers clock in and out is a proper\\nsubject of negotiation between unions and employers—is,\\nindeed, a mandatory subject of bargaining. 45 U.S.C. §152\\nFirst. (That phrase usually is associated with negotiations\\nunder the National Labor Relations Act, but the Supreme\\nCourt has held that the principle applies under the Railway\\nLabor Act too, with provisos that do not affect this case. See\\nPiTsburgh & Lake Erie R.R. v. Railway Labor Executives’ Associa-\\ntion, 491 U.S. 490, 508 n.17 (1989); Norfolk & Western Ry. v.\\nAmerican Train Dispatchers’ Association, 499 U.S. 117, 122\\n(1991). See also Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. Union\\nPacific R.R., 879 F.3d 754, 756 (7th Cir. 2017).)\\n As a maoer of federal law, unions in the air transporta-\\ntion business are the workers’ exclusive bargaining agents.\\n45 U.S.C. §152 Second; International Association of Machinists\\nv. Street, 367 U.S. 740, 760 (1961). A state cannot remove a\\ntopic from the union’s purview and require direct bargain-\\ning between individual workers and management. And Illi-\\nnois did not try. Its statute provides that a worker or an au-\\nthorized agent may receive necessary notices and consent to\\nthe collection of biometric information. 740 ILCS 14/15(b).\\nWe reject plaintiffs’ contention that a union is not a “legally\\nauthorized representative” for this purpose. Neither the\\nstatutory text nor any decision by a state court suggests that\\nIllinois wants to exclude a collective-bargaining representa-\\ntive from the category of authorized agents.\\n Whether Southwest’s or United’s unions did consent to\\nthe collection and use of biometric data, or perhaps grant au-\\nthority through a management-rights clause, is a question\\n\\fNos. 18-3476 & 19-1785 9\\n\\nfor an adjustment board. Similarly, the retention and de-\\nstruction schedules for biometric data, and whether air car-\\nriers may use third parties to implement timekeeping and\\nidentification systems, are topics for bargaining between un-\\nions and management. States cannot bypass the mechanisms\\nof the Railway Labor Act and authorize direct negotiation or\\nlitigation between workers and management. (Whether there\\nwould be a role for litigation if a union violated its duty of\\nfair representation is a subject we need not confront; plain-\\ntiffs have not named a union as a defendant or contended\\nthat a union has violated its duty of fair representation.) That\\nbiometric information concerns workers’ privacy does not\\ndistinguish it from many other subjects, such as drug testing,\\nthat are routinely covered by collective bargaining and on\\nwhich unions give consent on behalf of the whole bargaining\\nunit.\\n When a subject independent of collective bargaining aris-\\nes, and concerns different treatment of different workers, lit-\\nigation may proceed outside the scope of the Railway Labor\\nAct. The Supreme Court held in Lingle v. Norge Division of\\nMagic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399 (1988) (discussing the Labor\\nManagement Relations Act), that a retaliatory-discharge\\nclaim may be pursued under state law. Such a claim can be\\nresolved without interpreting a collective bargaining agree-\\nment; it is person-specific and does not concern the terms\\nand conditions of employment. See also Hughes v. United Air\\nLines, Inc., 634 F.3d 391 (7th Cir. 2011) (Lingle’s approach ap-\\nplies to the Railway Labor Act as well). But our plaintiffs as-\\nsert a right in common with all other employees, dealing\\nwith a mandatory subject of collective bargaining. It is not\\npossible even in principle to litigate a dispute about how an\\nair carrier acquires and uses fingerprint information for its\\n\\f10 Nos. 18-3476 & 19-1785\\n\\nwhole workforce without asking whether the union has con-\\nsented on the employees’ collective behalf. That’s why this\\ndispute must go to an adjustment board. Lingle, Hawaiian\\nAirlines, and Hughes all recognize that, if a dispute necessari-\\nly entails the interpretation or administration of a collective\\nbargaining agreement, there’s no room for individual em-\\nployees to sue under state law—in other words, state law is\\npreempted to the extent that a state has tried to overrule the\\nunion’s choices on behalf of the workers.\\n Plaintiffs stress that Southwest began using workers’ fin-\\ngerprints in 2006, two years before Illinois enacted its law.\\nThis shows that the union cannot have consented to South-\\nwest’s practices, plaintiffs conclude. That’s not necessarily\\nso. Southwest and the union may have discussed and re-\\nsolved this maoer in 2005, or 2006, or 2008, or in the decade\\nsince. Perhaps in 2006 Southwest supplied all of the infor-\\nmation, and the union gave all of the consents, that the state\\nlater required. Perhaps the statute led to a new round of bar-\\ngaining. What Southwest told the union, whether it fur-\\nnished that information in writing, when these things hap-\\npened, and what the union said or did in response, are\\nmaoers not in this record. They are properly not in this rec-\\nord, as they are topics for resolution by an adjustment board\\nrather than a judge. Perhaps a board will conclude that the\\nunion did not consent or did not receive essential infor-\\nmation before consenting, just as plaintiffs assert. But the\\nboard must make that decision and supply any appropriate\\nremedy.\\n What we have said about the suit against Southwest ap-\\nplies equally to the suit against United—and the conclusion\\nthat it is impossible to litigate under the state statute without\\n\\fNos. 18-3476 & 19-1785 11\\n\\nexamining what the union knew and agreed to also means\\nthat United was entitled to remove the suit to federal court\\nunder the federal-question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,\\n1441. Although the class aoempted to frame a complaint re-\\nlying entirely on state law, the complaint concerns collective\\nbargaining regulated by federal law. That brings into play a\\ndoctrine misleadingly called “complete preemption,” but\\nperhaps beoer labeled as a rule that when federal law com-\\npletely occupies a field any claim within that scope rests on\\nfederal law, no maoer how a plaintiff tries to frame the com-\\nplaint. See Franchise Tax Board v. Construction Laborers Vaca-\\ntion Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 23–24 (1983); Lehmann v. Brown, 230\\nF.3d 916, 919–20 (7th Cir. 2000); Hughes, 634 F.3d at 393.\\n If we are wrong about how the Railway Labor Act affects\\ncollective bargaining over fingerprinting in the workplace,\\nthen the doctrine of complete preemption would not author-\\nize removal of the suit against United. So, just in case, we\\nadd that the Class Action Fairness Act probably authorized\\nthe removal—probably, but not certainly.\\n A “class action” as defined in 28 U.S.C. §1332(d)(1) may\\nbe removed from state to federal court. 28 U.S.C. §1453(b).\\nSection 1332(d) creates federal jurisdiction if a class suit has\\nan amount in controversy exceeding $5 million and at least\\none member of the class has a citizenship different from that\\nof the defendants. Given the size of the class (more than\\n4,000 workers in Illinois alone use fingerprints to clock in\\nand out) and the penalties provided by state law, the contro-\\nversy exceeds $5 million. 740 ILCS 14/20. United is a Dela-\\nware corporation with its principal place of business in Illi-\\nnois, so if even one person who works for United in Illinois,\\nuses fingerprints to clock in and out, and is a citizen of any\\n\\f12 Nos. 18-3476 & 19-1785\\n\\nstate other than Delaware or Illinois, the requirement of min-\\nimal diversity is met. It seems likely to us that at least one\\nperson domiciled in southern Wisconsin or northwest Indi-\\nana works for United at O’Hare Airport, which is in com-\\nmuting distance from both states. But, for reasons that Unit-\\ned has not explained, its notice of removal does not assert\\nthis. Surely United knows where its workers live, and it may\\neven know their domicile (which is not always the state of\\nresidence), but it did not put that information in its notice of\\nremoval, which is therefore deficient.\\n The class representative tells us that he wants the class\\nlimited to citizens of Illinois. It is far from clear that this is\\nappropriate. The state law applies to private entities that col-\\nlect biometric data in Illinois; the statute does not purport to\\nexclude people who work in Illinois, provide biometric data\\nin Illinois, but are domiciled in other states. Nor is it clear\\nthat the class was so limited on the date of removal—and\\npost-removal amendments to a complaint or other papers do\\nnot eliminate jurisdiction proper at the time of removal. See\\nRockwell International Corp. v. United States, 549 U.S. 457, 473–\\n74 & n.6 (2007). Still, the shortcoming in United’s allegations\\nof citizenship remains as a potential obstacle.\\n After these problems were pointed out at oral argument,\\nUnited filed a jurisdictional supplement, invoking 28 U.S.C.\\n§1653. In addition to wrongly supposing that the suit chal-\\nlenges its employment practices nationwide—which is not\\npossible, as the state statute is limited to Illinois—the sup-\\nplemental filing continues to refer to the “residence” rather\\nthan the “citizenship” of United’s Illinois workforce.\\n Given our conclusion that the federal-question jurisdic-\\ntion supports removal, we need not remand for the district\\n\\fNos. 18-3476 & 19-1785 13\\n\\ncourt to explore the question whether, on the date the case\\nwas removed, one class member was a citizen of Wisconsin\\nor Indiana, or conceivably some third state other than Illinois\\nor Delaware—say, a citizen of California temporarily de-\\ntailed to work at O’Hare.\\n In Miller v. Southwest Airlines, No. 18-3476, the judg-\\nment of the district court is affirmed. In Johnson v. United Air-\\nlines, No. 19-1785, the judgment is vacated, and the case is\\nremanded with instructions to refer the parties’ dispute to an\\nadjustment board.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4406798/\", \"author_raw\": \"Frank Hoover Easterbrook\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"WOOD"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"BAUER"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"EASTERBROOK"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"WOOD\": \", Chief\", \"BAUER\": \", Circuit\", \"EASTERBROOK\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4629545/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":6,"string":"6"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Jennifer Miller v. Southwest Airlines Company\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-06-13\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\n\nNo. 18-3476\nJENNIFER MILLER, SCOTT POOLE, and KEVIN ENGLUND,\n Plaintiffs-Appellants,\n\n v.\n\nSOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.,\n Defendant-Appellee.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 18 C 86 — Marvin E. Aspen, Judge.\n ____________________\n\nNo. 19-1785\nDAVID JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of a class,\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\n\n v.\n\nUNITED AIRLINES, INC., and UNITED CONTINENTAL HOLDINGS,\nINC.,\n Defendants-Appellants.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 17 C 08858 — Virginia M. Kendall, Judge.\n\f2 Nos. 18-3476 & 19-1785\n\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED MAY 28, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 13, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and BAUER and EASTERBROOK,\nCircuit Judges.\n EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. We have consolidated two\nappeals that pose a common question: whether persons who\ncontend that air carriers have violated state law by using bi-\nometric identification in the workplace must present these\ncontentions to an adjustment board under the Railway Labor\nAct (RLA), 45 U.S.C. §§ 151–88, which applies to air carriers\nas well as railroads. 45 U.S.C. §181. The answer is yes if the\ncontentions amount to a “minor dispute”—that is, a dispute\nabout the interpretation or application of a collective bar-\ngaining agreement. 45 U.S.C. §§ 151a, 184; Hawaiian Airlines,\nInc. v. Norris, 512 U.S. 246, 252–53 (1994). Plaintiffs insist that\na judge should resolve their contentions, while defendants\ncontend that resolution belongs to an adjustment board.\n The claims in each suit arise under the Biometric Infor-\nmation Privacy Act (BIPA), 740 ILCS 14/5 to 14/25, which Il-\nlinois adopted in 2008. This law applies to all biometric iden-\ntifiers, which the statute defines to include fingerprints. 740\nILCS 14/10. Before obtaining any fingerprint, a “private enti-\nty” must inform the subject or “the subject’s legally author-\nized representative” in writing about several things, such as\nthe purpose of collecting the data and how long they will be\nkept, and obtain the consent of the subject or authorized rep-\nresentative. 740 ILCS 14/15(b). The private entity also must\nestablish and make available to the public a protocol for re-\n\fNos. 18-3476 & 19-1785 3\n\ntaining and handling biometric data, which must be de-\nstroyed “when the initial purpose for collecting or obtaining\nsuch identifiers or information has been satisfied or within 3\nyears of the individual’s last interaction with the private en-\ntity, whichever occurs first.” 740 ILCS 14/15(a). Sales of bio-\nmetric information are forbidden, 740 ILCS 14/15(c), and\ntransfers are limited, 740 ILCS 14/15(d). Private entities must\nprotect biometric information from disclosure. 740 ILCS\n14/15(e).\n Both Southwest Airlines and United Airlines maintain\ntimekeeping systems that require workers to clock in and\nout with their fingerprints. Plaintiffs contend that the air car-\nriers implemented these systems without their consent,\nfailed to publish protocols, and use third-party vendors to\nimplement the systems, which plaintiffs call a forbidden dis-\nclosure. Southwest and United contend that the plaintiffs’\nunions have consented—either expressly or through the col-\nlective bargaining agreements’ management-rights clauses—\nand that any required notice has been provided to the un-\nions. The air carriers insist that, to the extent these maoers\nare disputed, an adjustment board rather than a judge must\nresolve the difference—and that if state law gives workers\nrights beyond those provided by federal law and collective\nbargaining agreements, it is preempted by the Railway La-\nbor Act.\n The suits were assigned to different district judges.\n Judge Aspen found that the plaintiffs have standing un-\nder Article III but dismissed the suit against Southwest Air-\nlines for improper venue. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3). 2018 U.S.\nDist. LEXIS 143369 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 23, 2018). He made clear,\nhowever, that the suit did not belong in state court or some\n\f4 Nos. 18-3476 & 19-1785\n\nother federal district court; he held, rather, that it belongs to\nan adjustment board under the Railway Labor Act and that\nany aoempt by Illinois to give workers rights to bypass their\nunion (Transportation Workers Union Local 555) and deal\ndirectly with an air carrier is preempted by federal law. Thus\ndismissal has nothing to do with venue. See 28 U.S.C. §1391.\n Dismissal should have been labeled either as a judgment\non the pleadings, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c), or a dismissal for lack\nof subject-maoer jurisdiction, as this circuit’s decisions sug-\ngest. See, e.g., Carlson v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 758 F.3d\n819, 824–25 (7th Cir. 2014); Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way\nEmployees v. Norfolk Southern Ry., 745 F.3d 808 (7th Cir. 2014);\nBrown v. Illinois Central R.R., 254 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 2001). But\nsee, e.g., Oakey v. U.S. Airways Pilots Disability Plan, 723 F.3d\n227 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (need to resolve a dispute under the\nRailway Labor Act’s procedures does not imply lack of sub-\nject-maoer jurisdiction); Emswiler v. CSX Transportation, Inc.,\n691 F.3d 782 (6th Cir. 2012) (same). None of this circuit’s de-\ncisions considers the effect of the Supreme Court’s modern\nunderstanding of the difference between “jurisdiction” and\nother kinds of rules. See Fort Bend County v. Davis, No. 18–\n525 (U.S. June 3, 2019) (discussing the difference); Carlson,\n758 F.3d at 831 (recognizing that this court has yet to consid-\ner how the distinction applies to the Railway Labor Act). It is\nunnecessary to do so here, for either a substantive or a juris-\ndictional label ends the litigation between these parties and\nforecloses its continuation in any other judicial forum.\n The suit against United Airlines was filed in state court\nand removed to federal court on two theories: federal-\nquestion jurisdiction under the Railway Labor Act plus re-\nmoval jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1453, part of the Class\n\fNos. 18-3476 & 19-1785 5\n\nAction Fairness Act (CAFA). Judge Kendall concluded that\nthe subject is in the bailiwick of plaintiffs’ union (Interna-\ntional Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers)\nand an adjustment board; this aspect of her decision reaches\nthe same conclusion as Judge Aspen. But Judge Kendall\nadded that the complaint did not present a case or contro-\nversy, because the class asserted only a bare procedural\nright. This led her to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. 2018\nU.S. Dist. LEXIS 127959 (N.D. Ill. July 31, 2018).\n The class, which wants to litigate in state court, protested,\nobserving that if there is no federal jurisdiction then the suit\nmust be remanded. 28 U.S.C. §1447(c). Judge Kendall\nagreed. United also complained about the initial decision.\nObserving that the jurisdictional question had not been\nraised or briefed by the parties, United maintained that\nplaintiffs have standing because they allege (or at least im-\nply) that biometric data had been transmioed outside United\nand may have reached inappropriate hands. Judge Kendall\nrefused to revisit that subject, however, and entered an order\nreturning the case to state court. 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43484\n(N.D. Ill. Mar. 18, 2019).\n The remand of a suit removed under the Class Action\nFairness Act is appealable with judicial permission, 28 U.S.C.\n§1453(c)(1), and United asked us to accept its appeal. The\nstatute makes appellate authority turn on removal under the\nClass Action Fairness Act, not on whether the appeal pre-\nsents an issue about the interpretation of that statute. This,\nplus the disparate outcomes of the two suits, led us to accept\nthe appeal even on the assumption that the only issues con-\ncern the interaction between Illinois law and the Railway\nLabor Act. (That assumption may be incorrect. We’ll return\n\f6 Nos. 18-3476 & 19-1785\n\nto the question how the Class Action Fairness Act applies to\nthe removal of the suit against United.)\n Subject-maoer jurisdiction is the first issue in any case,\nand as far as we can see the two suits are identical in this re-\nspect. Judge Aspen found that fingerprinted workers have\nstanding, but Judge Kendall thought that a violation of the\nstate statute does not cause concrete injury to anyone, so that\nthe workers lack standing. See, e.g., Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136\nS. Ct. 1540 (2016); Groshek v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., 865 F.3d\n884 (7th Cir. 2017); Casillas v. Madison Avenue Associates, Inc.,\nNo. 17-3162 (7th Cir. June 4, 2019). We disagree with Judge\nKendall’s conclusion, for two principal reasons.\n First, the stakes in both suits include whether the air car-\nriers can use fingerprint identification. If the unions have not\nconsented, or if the carriers have not provided unions with\nrequired information, a court or adjustment board may or-\nder a change in how workers clock in and out. The prospect\nof a material change in workers’ terms and conditions of\nemployment gives these suits a concrete dimension that\nSpokeo, Groshek, and Casillas lacked. Either the discontinua-\ntion of the practice, or the need for the air carriers to agree to\nhigher wages to induce unions to consent, presents more\nthan a bare procedural dispute. See Robertson v. Allied Solu-\ntions, LLC, 902 F.3d 690, 697 (7th Cir. 2018) (“Article III’s\nstrictures are met not only when a plaintiff complains of be-\ning deprived of some benefit, but also when a plaintiff com-\nplains that she was deprived of a chance to obtain a bene-\nfit.”).\n Second, plaintiffs assert that the air carriers are not fol-\nlowing the statutory data-retention limit and may have used\noutside parties to administer their timekeeping systems. The\n\fNos. 18-3476 & 19-1785 7\n\nlonger data are retained, and the more people have access,\nthe greater the risk of disclosure (including by dissatisfied\nemployees who misuse their access or by criminals who\nhack into a computer system). This was Judge Aspen’s ra-\ntionale for finding standing. 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143369 at\n*5–10. Some employees devote time and money to safe-\nguards against identity theft. That’s why we held in Remijas\nv. Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, 794 F.3d 688 (7th Cir. 2015),\nthat a suit contending that hackers obtained personal details\npresents a case or controversy, even though the plaintiffs did\nnot contend that their credit ratings had suffered. See also,\ne.g., Lewert v. P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc., 819 F.3d 963 (7th\nCir. 2016); Dieffenbach v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., 887 F.3d 826\n(7th Cir. 2018). Because these complaints do not allege that\nbiometric data are in the hands of malefactors, their position\nis weaker than that of the plaintiffs in Remijas and its succes-\nsors. We need not decide whether the risk of disclosure itself\nsuffices for standing—or whether it would be necessary to\ntake discovery into the question whether biometric data\nhave been released—because the first ground of standing is\nindependently sufficient.\n We begin with the suit against Southwest, for in that suit\nthe plaintiffs are content to litigate in federal court. We post-\npone the question whether the suit against United was\nproperly removed.\n A dispute about the interpretation or administration of a\ncollective bargaining agreement must be resolved by an ad-\njustment board under the Railway Labor Act. There is no\ndoubt that Southwest has a collective bargaining agreement\nwith the union that represents the three plaintiffs. Southwest\nasserts that the union assented to the use of fingerprints, ei-\n\f8 Nos. 18-3476 & 19-1785\n\nther expressly on being notified before the practice was insti-\ntuted or through a management-rights clause. And there can\nbe no doubt that how workers clock in and out is a proper\nsubject of negotiation between unions and employers—is,\nindeed, a mandatory subject of bargaining. 45 U.S.C. §152\nFirst. (That phrase usually is associated with negotiations\nunder the National Labor Relations Act, but the Supreme\nCourt has held that the principle applies under the Railway\nLabor Act too, with provisos that do not affect this case. See\nPiTsburgh & Lake Erie R.R. v. Railway Labor Executives’ Associa-\ntion, 491 U.S. 490, 508 n.17 (1989); Norfolk & Western Ry. v.\nAmerican Train Dispatchers’ Association, 499 U.S. 117, 122\n(1991). See also Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. Union\nPacific R.R., 879 F.3d 754, 756 (7th Cir. 2017).)\n As a maoer of federal law, unions in the air transporta-\ntion business are the workers’ exclusive bargaining agents.\n45 U.S.C. §152 Second; International Association of Machinists\nv. Street, 367 U.S. 740, 760 (1961). A state cannot remove a\ntopic from the union’s purview and require direct bargain-\ning between individual workers and management. And Illi-\nnois did not try. Its statute provides that a worker or an au-\nthorized agent may receive necessary notices and consent to\nthe collection of biometric information. 740 ILCS 14/15(b).\nWe reject plaintiffs’ contention that a union is not a “legally\nauthorized representative” for this purpose. Neither the\nstatutory text nor any decision by a state court suggests that\nIllinois wants to exclude a collective-bargaining representa-\ntive from the category of authorized agents.\n Whether Southwest’s or United’s unions did consent to\nthe collection and use of biometric data, or perhaps grant au-\nthority through a management-rights clause, is a question\n\fNos. 18-3476 & 19-1785 9\n\nfor an adjustment board. Similarly, the retention and de-\nstruction schedules for biometric data, and whether air car-\nriers may use third parties to implement timekeeping and\nidentification systems, are topics for bargaining between un-\nions and management. States cannot bypass the mechanisms\nof the Railway Labor Act and authorize direct negotiation or\nlitigation between workers and management. (Whether there\nwould be a role for litigation if a union violated its duty of\nfair representation is a subject we need not confront; plain-\ntiffs have not named a union as a defendant or contended\nthat a union has violated its duty of fair representation.) That\nbiometric information concerns workers’ privacy does not\ndistinguish it from many other subjects, such as drug testing,\nthat are routinely covered by collective bargaining and on\nwhich unions give consent on behalf of the whole bargaining\nunit.\n When a subject independent of collective bargaining aris-\nes, and concerns different treatment of different workers, lit-\nigation may proceed outside the scope of the Railway Labor\nAct. The Supreme Court held in Lingle v. Norge Division of\nMagic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399 (1988) (discussing the Labor\nManagement Relations Act), that a retaliatory-discharge\nclaim may be pursued under state law. Such a claim can be\nresolved without interpreting a collective bargaining agree-\nment; it is person-specific and does not concern the terms\nand conditions of employment. See also Hughes v. United Air\nLines, Inc., 634 F.3d 391 (7th Cir. 2011) (Lingle’s approach ap-\nplies to the Railway Labor Act as well). But our plaintiffs as-\nsert a right in common with all other employees, dealing\nwith a mandatory subject of collective bargaining. It is not\npossible even in principle to litigate a dispute about how an\nair carrier acquires and uses fingerprint information for its\n\f10 Nos. 18-3476 & 19-1785\n\nwhole workforce without asking whether the union has con-\nsented on the employees’ collective behalf. That’s why this\ndispute must go to an adjustment board. Lingle, Hawaiian\nAirlines, and Hughes all recognize that, if a dispute necessari-\nly entails the interpretation or administration of a collective\nbargaining agreement, there’s no room for individual em-\nployees to sue under state law—in other words, state law is\npreempted to the extent that a state has tried to overrule the\nunion’s choices on behalf of the workers.\n Plaintiffs stress that Southwest began using workers’ fin-\ngerprints in 2006, two years before Illinois enacted its law.\nThis shows that the union cannot have consented to South-\nwest’s practices, plaintiffs conclude. That’s not necessarily\nso. Southwest and the union may have discussed and re-\nsolved this maoer in 2005, or 2006, or 2008, or in the decade\nsince. Perhaps in 2006 Southwest supplied all of the infor-\nmation, and the union gave all of the consents, that the state\nlater required. Perhaps the statute led to a new round of bar-\ngaining. What Southwest told the union, whether it fur-\nnished that information in writing, when these things hap-\npened, and what the union said or did in response, are\nmaoers not in this record. They are properly not in this rec-\nord, as they are topics for resolution by an adjustment board\nrather than a judge. Perhaps a board will conclude that the\nunion did not consent or did not receive essential infor-\nmation before consenting, just as plaintiffs assert. But the\nboard must make that decision and supply any appropriate\nremedy.\n What we have said about the suit against Southwest ap-\nplies equally to the suit against United—and the conclusion\nthat it is impossible to litigate under the state statute without\n\fNos. 18-3476 & 19-1785 11\n\nexamining what the union knew and agreed to also means\nthat United was entitled to remove the suit to federal court\nunder the federal-question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,\n1441. Although the class aoempted to frame a complaint re-\nlying entirely on state law, the complaint concerns collective\nbargaining regulated by federal law. That brings into play a\ndoctrine misleadingly called “complete preemption,” but\nperhaps beoer labeled as a rule that when federal law com-\npletely occupies a field any claim within that scope rests on\nfederal law, no maoer how a plaintiff tries to frame the com-\nplaint. See Franchise Tax Board v. Construction Laborers Vaca-\ntion Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 23–24 (1983); Lehmann v. Brown, 230\nF.3d 916, 919–20 (7th Cir. 2000); Hughes, 634 F.3d at 393.\n If we are wrong about how the Railway Labor Act affects\ncollective bargaining over fingerprinting in the workplace,\nthen the doctrine of complete preemption would not author-\nize removal of the suit against United. So, just in case, we\nadd that the Class Action Fairness Act probably authorized\nthe removal—probably, but not certainly.\n A “class action” as defined in 28 U.S.C. §1332(d)(1) may\nbe removed from state to federal court. 28 U.S.C. §1453(b).\nSection 1332(d) creates federal jurisdiction if a class suit has\nan amount in controversy exceeding $5 million and at least\none member of the class has a citizenship different from that\nof the defendants. Given the size of the class (more than\n4,000 workers in Illinois alone use fingerprints to clock in\nand out) and the penalties provided by state law, the contro-\nversy exceeds $5 million. 740 ILCS 14/20. United is a Dela-\nware corporation with its principal place of business in Illi-\nnois, so if even one person who works for United in Illinois,\nuses fingerprints to clock in and out, and is a citizen of any\n\f12 Nos. 18-3476 & 19-1785\n\nstate other than Delaware or Illinois, the requirement of min-\nimal diversity is met. It seems likely to us that at least one\nperson domiciled in southern Wisconsin or northwest Indi-\nana works for United at O’Hare Airport, which is in com-\nmuting distance from both states. But, for reasons that Unit-\ned has not explained, its notice of removal does not assert\nthis. Surely United knows where its workers live, and it may\neven know their domicile (which is not always the state of\nresidence), but it did not put that information in its notice of\nremoval, which is therefore deficient.\n The class representative tells us that he wants the class\nlimited to citizens of Illinois. It is far from clear that this is\nappropriate. The state law applies to private entities that col-\nlect biometric data in Illinois; the statute does not purport to\nexclude people who work in Illinois, provide biometric data\nin Illinois, but are domiciled in other states. Nor is it clear\nthat the class was so limited on the date of removal—and\npost-removal amendments to a complaint or other papers do\nnot eliminate jurisdiction proper at the time of removal. See\nRockwell International Corp. v. United States, 549 U.S. 457, 473–\n74 & n.6 (2007). Still, the shortcoming in United’s allegations\nof citizenship remains as a potential obstacle.\n After these problems were pointed out at oral argument,\nUnited filed a jurisdictional supplement, invoking 28 U.S.C.\n§1653. In addition to wrongly supposing that the suit chal-\nlenges its employment practices nationwide—which is not\npossible, as the state statute is limited to Illinois—the sup-\nplemental filing continues to refer to the “residence” rather\nthan the “citizenship” of United’s Illinois workforce.\n Given our conclusion that the federal-question jurisdic-\ntion supports removal, we need not remand for the district\n\fNos. 18-3476 & 19-1785 13\n\ncourt to explore the question whether, on the date the case\nwas removed, one class member was a citizen of Wisconsin\nor Indiana, or conceivably some third state other than Illinois\nor Delaware—say, a citizen of California temporarily de-\ntailed to work at O’Hare.\n In Miller v. Southwest Airlines, No. 18-3476, the judg-\nment of the district court is affirmed. In Johnson v. United Air-\nlines, No. 19-1785, the judgment is vacated, and the case is\nremanded with instructions to refer the parties’ dispute to an\nadjustment board.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Jennifer Miller v. Southwest Airlines Company\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-06-13\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\n\\nNo. 18-3476\\nJENNIFER MILLER, SCOTT POOLE, and KEVIN ENGLUND,\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants,\\n\\n v.\\n\\nSOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.,\\n Defendant-Appellee.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 18 C 86 — Marvin E. Aspen, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\nNo. 19-1785\\nDAVID JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of a class,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n\\n v.\\n\\nUNITED AIRLINES, INC., and UNITED CONTINENTAL HOLDINGS,\\nINC.,\\n Defendants-Appellants.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 17 C 08858 — Virginia M. Kendall, Judge.\\n\\f2 Nos. 18-3476 & 19-1785\\n\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED MAY 28, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 13, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and BAUER and EASTERBROOK,\\nCircuit Judges.\\n EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. We have consolidated two\\nappeals that pose a common question: whether persons who\\ncontend that air carriers have violated state law by using bi-\\nometric identification in the workplace must present these\\ncontentions to an adjustment board under the Railway Labor\\nAct (RLA), 45 U.S.C. §§ 151–88, which applies to air carriers\\nas well as railroads. 45 U.S.C. §181. The answer is yes if the\\ncontentions amount to a “minor dispute”—that is, a dispute\\nabout the interpretation or application of a collective bar-\\ngaining agreement. 45 U.S.C. §§ 151a, 184; Hawaiian Airlines,\\nInc. v. Norris, 512 U.S. 246, 252–53 (1994). Plaintiffs insist that\\na judge should resolve their contentions, while defendants\\ncontend that resolution belongs to an adjustment board.\\n The claims in each suit arise under the Biometric Infor-\\nmation Privacy Act (BIPA), 740 ILCS 14/5 to 14/25, which Il-\\nlinois adopted in 2008. This law applies to all biometric iden-\\ntifiers, which the statute defines to include fingerprints. 740\\nILCS 14/10. Before obtaining any fingerprint, a “private enti-\\nty” must inform the subject or “the subject’s legally author-\\nized representative” in writing about several things, such as\\nthe purpose of collecting the data and how long they will be\\nkept, and obtain the consent of the subject or authorized rep-\\nresentative. 740 ILCS 14/15(b). The private entity also must\\nestablish and make available to the public a protocol for re-\\n\\fNos. 18-3476 & 19-1785 3\\n\\ntaining and handling biometric data, which must be de-\\nstroyed “when the initial purpose for collecting or obtaining\\nsuch identifiers or information has been satisfied or within 3\\nyears of the individual’s last interaction with the private en-\\ntity, whichever occurs first.” 740 ILCS 14/15(a). Sales of bio-\\nmetric information are forbidden, 740 ILCS 14/15(c), and\\ntransfers are limited, 740 ILCS 14/15(d). Private entities must\\nprotect biometric information from disclosure. 740 ILCS\\n14/15(e).\\n Both Southwest Airlines and United Airlines maintain\\ntimekeeping systems that require workers to clock in and\\nout with their fingerprints. Plaintiffs contend that the air car-\\nriers implemented these systems without their consent,\\nfailed to publish protocols, and use third-party vendors to\\nimplement the systems, which plaintiffs call a forbidden dis-\\nclosure. Southwest and United contend that the plaintiffs’\\nunions have consented—either expressly or through the col-\\nlective bargaining agreements’ management-rights clauses—\\nand that any required notice has been provided to the un-\\nions. The air carriers insist that, to the extent these maoers\\nare disputed, an adjustment board rather than a judge must\\nresolve the difference—and that if state law gives workers\\nrights beyond those provided by federal law and collective\\nbargaining agreements, it is preempted by the Railway La-\\nbor Act.\\n The suits were assigned to different district judges.\\n Judge Aspen found that the plaintiffs have standing un-\\nder Article III but dismissed the suit against Southwest Air-\\nlines for improper venue. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3). 2018 U.S.\\nDist. LEXIS 143369 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 23, 2018). He made clear,\\nhowever, that the suit did not belong in state court or some\\n\\f4 Nos. 18-3476 & 19-1785\\n\\nother federal district court; he held, rather, that it belongs to\\nan adjustment board under the Railway Labor Act and that\\nany aoempt by Illinois to give workers rights to bypass their\\nunion (Transportation Workers Union Local 555) and deal\\ndirectly with an air carrier is preempted by federal law. Thus\\ndismissal has nothing to do with venue. See 28 U.S.C. §1391.\\n Dismissal should have been labeled either as a judgment\\non the pleadings, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c), or a dismissal for lack\\nof subject-maoer jurisdiction, as this circuit’s decisions sug-\\ngest. See, e.g., Carlson v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 758 F.3d\\n819, 824–25 (7th Cir. 2014); Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way\\nEmployees v. Norfolk Southern Ry., 745 F.3d 808 (7th Cir. 2014);\\nBrown v. Illinois Central R.R., 254 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 2001). But\\nsee, e.g., Oakey v. U.S. Airways Pilots Disability Plan, 723 F.3d\\n227 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (need to resolve a dispute under the\\nRailway Labor Act’s procedures does not imply lack of sub-\\nject-maoer jurisdiction); Emswiler v. CSX Transportation, Inc.,\\n691 F.3d 782 (6th Cir. 2012) (same). None of this circuit’s de-\\ncisions considers the effect of the Supreme Court’s modern\\nunderstanding of the difference between “jurisdiction” and\\nother kinds of rules. See Fort Bend County v. Davis, No. 18–\\n525 (U.S. June 3, 2019) (discussing the difference); Carlson,\\n758 F.3d at 831 (recognizing that this court has yet to consid-\\ner how the distinction applies to the Railway Labor Act). It is\\nunnecessary to do so here, for either a substantive or a juris-\\ndictional label ends the litigation between these parties and\\nforecloses its continuation in any other judicial forum.\\n The suit against United Airlines was filed in state court\\nand removed to federal court on two theories: federal-\\nquestion jurisdiction under the Railway Labor Act plus re-\\nmoval jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1453, part of the Class\\n\\fNos. 18-3476 & 19-1785 5\\n\\nAction Fairness Act (CAFA). Judge Kendall concluded that\\nthe subject is in the bailiwick of plaintiffs’ union (Interna-\\ntional Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers)\\nand an adjustment board; this aspect of her decision reaches\\nthe same conclusion as Judge Aspen. But Judge Kendall\\nadded that the complaint did not present a case or contro-\\nversy, because the class asserted only a bare procedural\\nright. This led her to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. 2018\\nU.S. Dist. LEXIS 127959 (N.D. Ill. July 31, 2018).\\n The class, which wants to litigate in state court, protested,\\nobserving that if there is no federal jurisdiction then the suit\\nmust be remanded. 28 U.S.C. §1447(c). Judge Kendall\\nagreed. United also complained about the initial decision.\\nObserving that the jurisdictional question had not been\\nraised or briefed by the parties, United maintained that\\nplaintiffs have standing because they allege (or at least im-\\nply) that biometric data had been transmioed outside United\\nand may have reached inappropriate hands. Judge Kendall\\nrefused to revisit that subject, however, and entered an order\\nreturning the case to state court. 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43484\\n(N.D. Ill. Mar. 18, 2019).\\n The remand of a suit removed under the Class Action\\nFairness Act is appealable with judicial permission, 28 U.S.C.\\n§1453(c)(1), and United asked us to accept its appeal. The\\nstatute makes appellate authority turn on removal under the\\nClass Action Fairness Act, not on whether the appeal pre-\\nsents an issue about the interpretation of that statute. This,\\nplus the disparate outcomes of the two suits, led us to accept\\nthe appeal even on the assumption that the only issues con-\\ncern the interaction between Illinois law and the Railway\\nLabor Act. (That assumption may be incorrect. We’ll return\\n\\f6 Nos. 18-3476 & 19-1785\\n\\nto the question how the Class Action Fairness Act applies to\\nthe removal of the suit against United.)\\n Subject-maoer jurisdiction is the first issue in any case,\\nand as far as we can see the two suits are identical in this re-\\nspect. Judge Aspen found that fingerprinted workers have\\nstanding, but Judge Kendall thought that a violation of the\\nstate statute does not cause concrete injury to anyone, so that\\nthe workers lack standing. See, e.g., Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136\\nS. Ct. 1540 (2016); Groshek v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., 865 F.3d\\n884 (7th Cir. 2017); Casillas v. Madison Avenue Associates, Inc.,\\nNo. 17-3162 (7th Cir. June 4, 2019). We disagree with Judge\\nKendall’s conclusion, for two principal reasons.\\n First, the stakes in both suits include whether the air car-\\nriers can use fingerprint identification. If the unions have not\\nconsented, or if the carriers have not provided unions with\\nrequired information, a court or adjustment board may or-\\nder a change in how workers clock in and out. The prospect\\nof a material change in workers’ terms and conditions of\\nemployment gives these suits a concrete dimension that\\nSpokeo, Groshek, and Casillas lacked. Either the discontinua-\\ntion of the practice, or the need for the air carriers to agree to\\nhigher wages to induce unions to consent, presents more\\nthan a bare procedural dispute. See Robertson v. Allied Solu-\\ntions, LLC, 902 F.3d 690, 697 (7th Cir. 2018) (“Article III’s\\nstrictures are met not only when a plaintiff complains of be-\\ning deprived of some benefit, but also when a plaintiff com-\\nplains that she was deprived of a chance to obtain a bene-\\nfit.”).\\n Second, plaintiffs assert that the air carriers are not fol-\\nlowing the statutory data-retention limit and may have used\\noutside parties to administer their timekeeping systems. The\\n\\fNos. 18-3476 & 19-1785 7\\n\\nlonger data are retained, and the more people have access,\\nthe greater the risk of disclosure (including by dissatisfied\\nemployees who misuse their access or by criminals who\\nhack into a computer system). This was Judge Aspen’s ra-\\ntionale for finding standing. 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143369 at\\n*5–10. Some employees devote time and money to safe-\\nguards against identity theft. That’s why we held in Remijas\\nv. Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, 794 F.3d 688 (7th Cir. 2015),\\nthat a suit contending that hackers obtained personal details\\npresents a case or controversy, even though the plaintiffs did\\nnot contend that their credit ratings had suffered. See also,\\ne.g., Lewert v. P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc., 819 F.3d 963 (7th\\nCir. 2016); Dieffenbach v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., 887 F.3d 826\\n(7th Cir. 2018). Because these complaints do not allege that\\nbiometric data are in the hands of malefactors, their position\\nis weaker than that of the plaintiffs in Remijas and its succes-\\nsors. We need not decide whether the risk of disclosure itself\\nsuffices for standing—or whether it would be necessary to\\ntake discovery into the question whether biometric data\\nhave been released—because the first ground of standing is\\nindependently sufficient.\\n We begin with the suit against Southwest, for in that suit\\nthe plaintiffs are content to litigate in federal court. We post-\\npone the question whether the suit against United was\\nproperly removed.\\n A dispute about the interpretation or administration of a\\ncollective bargaining agreement must be resolved by an ad-\\njustment board under the Railway Labor Act. There is no\\ndoubt that Southwest has a collective bargaining agreement\\nwith the union that represents the three plaintiffs. Southwest\\nasserts that the union assented to the use of fingerprints, ei-\\n\\f8 Nos. 18-3476 & 19-1785\\n\\nther expressly on being notified before the practice was insti-\\ntuted or through a management-rights clause. And there can\\nbe no doubt that how workers clock in and out is a proper\\nsubject of negotiation between unions and employers—is,\\nindeed, a mandatory subject of bargaining. 45 U.S.C. §152\\nFirst. (That phrase usually is associated with negotiations\\nunder the National Labor Relations Act, but the Supreme\\nCourt has held that the principle applies under the Railway\\nLabor Act too, with provisos that do not affect this case. See\\nPiTsburgh & Lake Erie R.R. v. Railway Labor Executives’ Associa-\\ntion, 491 U.S. 490, 508 n.17 (1989); Norfolk & Western Ry. v.\\nAmerican Train Dispatchers’ Association, 499 U.S. 117, 122\\n(1991). See also Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. Union\\nPacific R.R., 879 F.3d 754, 756 (7th Cir. 2017).)\\n As a maoer of federal law, unions in the air transporta-\\ntion business are the workers’ exclusive bargaining agents.\\n45 U.S.C. §152 Second; International Association of Machinists\\nv. Street, 367 U.S. 740, 760 (1961). A state cannot remove a\\ntopic from the union’s purview and require direct bargain-\\ning between individual workers and management. And Illi-\\nnois did not try. Its statute provides that a worker or an au-\\nthorized agent may receive necessary notices and consent to\\nthe collection of biometric information. 740 ILCS 14/15(b).\\nWe reject plaintiffs’ contention that a union is not a “legally\\nauthorized representative” for this purpose. Neither the\\nstatutory text nor any decision by a state court suggests that\\nIllinois wants to exclude a collective-bargaining representa-\\ntive from the category of authorized agents.\\n Whether Southwest’s or United’s unions did consent to\\nthe collection and use of biometric data, or perhaps grant au-\\nthority through a management-rights clause, is a question\\n\\fNos. 18-3476 & 19-1785 9\\n\\nfor an adjustment board. Similarly, the retention and de-\\nstruction schedules for biometric data, and whether air car-\\nriers may use third parties to implement timekeeping and\\nidentification systems, are topics for bargaining between un-\\nions and management. States cannot bypass the mechanisms\\nof the Railway Labor Act and authorize direct negotiation or\\nlitigation between workers and management. (Whether there\\nwould be a role for litigation if a union violated its duty of\\nfair representation is a subject we need not confront; plain-\\ntiffs have not named a union as a defendant or contended\\nthat a union has violated its duty of fair representation.) That\\nbiometric information concerns workers’ privacy does not\\ndistinguish it from many other subjects, such as drug testing,\\nthat are routinely covered by collective bargaining and on\\nwhich unions give consent on behalf of the whole bargaining\\nunit.\\n When a subject independent of collective bargaining aris-\\nes, and concerns different treatment of different workers, lit-\\nigation may proceed outside the scope of the Railway Labor\\nAct. The Supreme Court held in Lingle v. Norge Division of\\nMagic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399 (1988) (discussing the Labor\\nManagement Relations Act), that a retaliatory-discharge\\nclaim may be pursued under state law. Such a claim can be\\nresolved without interpreting a collective bargaining agree-\\nment; it is person-specific and does not concern the terms\\nand conditions of employment. See also Hughes v. United Air\\nLines, Inc., 634 F.3d 391 (7th Cir. 2011) (Lingle’s approach ap-\\nplies to the Railway Labor Act as well). But our plaintiffs as-\\nsert a right in common with all other employees, dealing\\nwith a mandatory subject of collective bargaining. It is not\\npossible even in principle to litigate a dispute about how an\\nair carrier acquires and uses fingerprint information for its\\n\\f10 Nos. 18-3476 & 19-1785\\n\\nwhole workforce without asking whether the union has con-\\nsented on the employees’ collective behalf. That’s why this\\ndispute must go to an adjustment board. Lingle, Hawaiian\\nAirlines, and Hughes all recognize that, if a dispute necessari-\\nly entails the interpretation or administration of a collective\\nbargaining agreement, there’s no room for individual em-\\nployees to sue under state law—in other words, state law is\\npreempted to the extent that a state has tried to overrule the\\nunion’s choices on behalf of the workers.\\n Plaintiffs stress that Southwest began using workers’ fin-\\ngerprints in 2006, two years before Illinois enacted its law.\\nThis shows that the union cannot have consented to South-\\nwest’s practices, plaintiffs conclude. That’s not necessarily\\nso. Southwest and the union may have discussed and re-\\nsolved this maoer in 2005, or 2006, or 2008, or in the decade\\nsince. Perhaps in 2006 Southwest supplied all of the infor-\\nmation, and the union gave all of the consents, that the state\\nlater required. Perhaps the statute led to a new round of bar-\\ngaining. What Southwest told the union, whether it fur-\\nnished that information in writing, when these things hap-\\npened, and what the union said or did in response, are\\nmaoers not in this record. They are properly not in this rec-\\nord, as they are topics for resolution by an adjustment board\\nrather than a judge. Perhaps a board will conclude that the\\nunion did not consent or did not receive essential infor-\\nmation before consenting, just as plaintiffs assert. But the\\nboard must make that decision and supply any appropriate\\nremedy.\\n What we have said about the suit against Southwest ap-\\nplies equally to the suit against United—and the conclusion\\nthat it is impossible to litigate under the state statute without\\n\\fNos. 18-3476 & 19-1785 11\\n\\nexamining what the union knew and agreed to also means\\nthat United was entitled to remove the suit to federal court\\nunder the federal-question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,\\n1441. Although the class aoempted to frame a complaint re-\\nlying entirely on state law, the complaint concerns collective\\nbargaining regulated by federal law. That brings into play a\\ndoctrine misleadingly called “complete preemption,” but\\nperhaps beoer labeled as a rule that when federal law com-\\npletely occupies a field any claim within that scope rests on\\nfederal law, no maoer how a plaintiff tries to frame the com-\\nplaint. See Franchise Tax Board v. Construction Laborers Vaca-\\ntion Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 23–24 (1983); Lehmann v. Brown, 230\\nF.3d 916, 919–20 (7th Cir. 2000); Hughes, 634 F.3d at 393.\\n If we are wrong about how the Railway Labor Act affects\\ncollective bargaining over fingerprinting in the workplace,\\nthen the doctrine of complete preemption would not author-\\nize removal of the suit against United. So, just in case, we\\nadd that the Class Action Fairness Act probably authorized\\nthe removal—probably, but not certainly.\\n A “class action” as defined in 28 U.S.C. §1332(d)(1) may\\nbe removed from state to federal court. 28 U.S.C. §1453(b).\\nSection 1332(d) creates federal jurisdiction if a class suit has\\nan amount in controversy exceeding $5 million and at least\\none member of the class has a citizenship different from that\\nof the defendants. Given the size of the class (more than\\n4,000 workers in Illinois alone use fingerprints to clock in\\nand out) and the penalties provided by state law, the contro-\\nversy exceeds $5 million. 740 ILCS 14/20. United is a Dela-\\nware corporation with its principal place of business in Illi-\\nnois, so if even one person who works for United in Illinois,\\nuses fingerprints to clock in and out, and is a citizen of any\\n\\f12 Nos. 18-3476 & 19-1785\\n\\nstate other than Delaware or Illinois, the requirement of min-\\nimal diversity is met. It seems likely to us that at least one\\nperson domiciled in southern Wisconsin or northwest Indi-\\nana works for United at O’Hare Airport, which is in com-\\nmuting distance from both states. But, for reasons that Unit-\\ned has not explained, its notice of removal does not assert\\nthis. Surely United knows where its workers live, and it may\\neven know their domicile (which is not always the state of\\nresidence), but it did not put that information in its notice of\\nremoval, which is therefore deficient.\\n The class representative tells us that he wants the class\\nlimited to citizens of Illinois. It is far from clear that this is\\nappropriate. The state law applies to private entities that col-\\nlect biometric data in Illinois; the statute does not purport to\\nexclude people who work in Illinois, provide biometric data\\nin Illinois, but are domiciled in other states. Nor is it clear\\nthat the class was so limited on the date of removal—and\\npost-removal amendments to a complaint or other papers do\\nnot eliminate jurisdiction proper at the time of removal. See\\nRockwell International Corp. v. United States, 549 U.S. 457, 473–\\n74 & n.6 (2007). Still, the shortcoming in United’s allegations\\nof citizenship remains as a potential obstacle.\\n After these problems were pointed out at oral argument,\\nUnited filed a jurisdictional supplement, invoking 28 U.S.C.\\n§1653. In addition to wrongly supposing that the suit chal-\\nlenges its employment practices nationwide—which is not\\npossible, as the state statute is limited to Illinois—the sup-\\nplemental filing continues to refer to the “residence” rather\\nthan the “citizenship” of United’s Illinois workforce.\\n Given our conclusion that the federal-question jurisdic-\\ntion supports removal, we need not remand for the district\\n\\fNos. 18-3476 & 19-1785 13\\n\\ncourt to explore the question whether, on the date the case\\nwas removed, one class member was a citizen of Wisconsin\\nor Indiana, or conceivably some third state other than Illinois\\nor Delaware—say, a citizen of California temporarily de-\\ntailed to work at O’Hare.\\n In Miller v. Southwest Airlines, No. 18-3476, the judg-\\nment of the district court is affirmed. In Johnson v. United Air-\\nlines, No. 19-1785, the judgment is vacated, and the case is\\nremanded with instructions to refer the parties’ dispute to an\\nadjustment board.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2582,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4629850,"string":"4,629,850"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"Shaka FREEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO, Defendant-Appellee."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Freeman v. Metro. Water Reclamation Dist. of Greater Chi."},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-06-14"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-3737"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"PER CURIAM\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-3737\\nSHAKA FREEMAN,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nMETROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION\\nDISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO,\\n Defendant-Appellee.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 17 C 4409 — Harry D. Leinenweber, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n SUBMITTED MAY 30, 2019 1 — DECIDED JUNE 14, 2019 2\\n ____________________\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 1 We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because\\nthe briefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments,\\nand oral argument would not significantly aid the court. FED. R. APP.\\nP. 34(a)(2)(C).\\n 2 This opinion was originally issued as a nonprecedential order on\\nJune 3, 2019. The court has decided to re-issue it as a precedential opinion.\\n\\f2 No. 18-3737\\n\\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and ROVNER,\\nCircuit Judges.\\n PER CURIAM, Shaka Freeman, an African-American man\\nwho suffers from alcoholism, sued the Water Reclamation\\nDistrict of Greater Chicago, his former employer, for firing\\nhim because of his race and disability. The district court dis-\\nmissed his complaint for failure to state a claim. See FED. R.\\nCIV. P. 12(b)(6). We conclude, however, that Freeman has\\npleaded enough to state his discrimination claims, and so we\\nvacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings with\\nrespect to those issues. We affirm with respect to Freeman’s\\ncontention that the District fired him pursuant to a policy that\\nis unlawful under Monell v. Department of Social Services., 436\\nU.S. 658, 694–95 (1978).\\n For purposes of this appeal, we assume the truth of the\\nallegations in Freeman’s complaint and its attachments.\\nSee Carmody v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ill., 747 F.3d 470, 471\\n(7th Cir. 2014). Freeman began working for the District in\\nMay 2015 as an operator of a treatment plant. The District is a\\nmunicipal corporation. See 70 ILCS 2605/1. Freeman’s job in-\\nvolved the collection and transportation of temperature-sen-\\nsitive water samples across the mile-long plant. Although op-\\nerators typically transport these samples in District-owned\\nvehicles, the job description does not require a driver’s li-\\ncense. In his first year, Freeman, like all new hires, was a pro-\\nbationary worker, employed at will. Id. at 2605/4.11. Once he\\ncompleted his first year, the District would be able to fire him\\nonly for cause.\\n About three months after Freeman was hired, he was ar-\\nrested for driving under the influence of alcohol and his li-\\ncense was suspended for six months. Freeman began seeing a\\n\\fNo. 18-3737 3\\n\\nsubstance-abuse counselor for his alcohol problem. As re-\\nquired by his job contract, he also told the District about the\\nlicense suspension and his counseling. To ensure that con-\\ncerns about his alcohol problem or license suspension did not\\ninterfere with his job, he did three things: (1) he bought a bike\\nand a cooler to transport samples around the plant, (2) he\\nasked if he could use a John Deere go-cart, which does not\\nrequire a driver’s license on private property, and (3) he ap-\\nplied for an occupational driving permit from the state that\\nwould permit him to drive a company vehicle while working.\\n(The state authorized his permit conditional on the District’s\\napproval, but the District refused to grant his request.) The\\nDistrict fired Freeman while he was on probation, asserting\\n“unsatisfactory performance.” Freeman alleges that this ex-\\nplanation is pretextual; the District’s real reason for firing him\\nhe said, was because of his race and because it regarded him\\nas an alcoholic.\\n Freeman sued the District for employment discrimination.\\nIts path in the district court was a rocky one, and the case pre-\\nsented some managerial challenges for the district court. At\\nthe outset of the suit, the court recruited an attorney to repre-\\nsent Freeman. That relationship broke down and the attorney\\nwas excused; three additional attorneys followed. Each one\\nmoved to withdraw because of disagreements with Freeman\\nabout litigation strategy. Second, while proceeding pro se,\\nFreeman filed three sprawling amended complaints, each\\nover 70 pages. On the District’s motions, the judge dismissed\\ntwo of these filings for failure to comply with the requirement\\nunder Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) calling for a “short\\nand plain statement of the claim.” Freeman withdrew the\\nthird iteration.\\n\\f4 No. 18-3737\\n\\n His operative complaint—the fourth amended version—\\nraises claims of race and disability discrimination and of re-\\ntaliation, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, Title VII of the\\nCivil Rights Act of 1964, id. § 2000e-2, and the Americans with\\nDisabilities Act, id. at § 12112. He alleges that the District fired\\nhim “due to his race” (African-American) and “disability” (al-\\ncoholism). He next asserts that the District failed reasonably\\nto accommodate his alcoholism by refusing to let him travel\\naround the grounds of the plant without using a car. He also\\naccuses the District of retaliating against him by firing him af-\\nter he sought reasonable accommodations. Finally, he alleges\\nthat the District fired him under an unconstitutional policy.\\n The district court dismissed Freeman’s complaint with\\nprejudice for failure to state a claim. Its opinion began with\\nFreeman’s assertion that the District fired him because of his\\nalcoholism. The court reasoned that Freeman pleaded neither\\nthat his alcoholism caused “substantial limitations” to major\\nlife activities nor that it caused his firing. Next, the court said,\\nFreeman’s retaliation and reasonable-accommodations claims\\nfailed because he had requested accommodations only for his\\nlicense suspension, not his alcoholism. Turning to Freeman’s\\nrace-discrimination claims under § 1983 and Title VII, the\\ncourt ruled that Freeman “fail[ed] to plead the final ele-\\nment”—that he was treated less favorably than at least one\\ncolleague who was not African-American. Freeman had no\\nclaim under § 1981 because, the court explained, that statute\\ngenerally does not allow a private right of action against pub-\\nlic actors. Finally, the court concluded that Freeman had not\\nstated a “policy” claim under Monell because he had not iden-\\ntified the policy or practice that he challenged.\\n\\fNo. 18-3737 5\\n\\n On appeal Freeman (still acting pro se) contends that his\\ncomplaint sufficiently states each of his claims. He argues that\\nthe district court erroneously “judg[ed] the truth of [his] fac-\\ntual allegations,” including his allegation that the District’s\\ndecision to fire him for “unsatisfactory performance” was pre-\\ntextual.\\n We conclude that the district court erred by demanding\\ntoo much specificity in Freeman’s complaint. A plaintiff alleg-\\ning race discrimination need not allege each evidentiary ele-\\nment of a legal theory to survive a motion to dismiss.\\nSwierkiewicz v. Sorema, N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 510–14 (2002); Ta-\\nmayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1081 (7th Cir. 2008). Rather,\\nto proceed against the District under § 1983 or Title VII, Free-\\nman needed only to allege—as he did here—that the District\\nfired him because of his race. Tamayo, 526 F.3d at 1084; see also\\nBennett v. Schmidt, 153 F.3d 516, 518 (7th Cir. 1998) (“‘I was\\nturned down for a job because of my race’ is all a complaint\\nhas to say.”). His failure to plead the evidentiary element\\nabout comparable coworkers, therefore, is not fatal.\\n Similarly, Freeman has stated a claim for disability and re-\\ntaliation claims under the ADA. The general rule in federal\\ncourt calls only for notice pleading, see Erickson v. Pardus,\\n551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007), but some theories of recovery require\\nmore detail than others in order to give the required notice.\\nThat is why we noted in Tate v. SCR Medical Transportation, 809\\nF.3d 343, 345 (7th Cir. 2015), that a plaintiff advancing a claim\\nunder the ADA must allege that he is disabled but, with or\\nwithout reasonable accommodation, can still do the job. Nor-\\nmally he also must allege what exactly makes him disabled.\\n The district court here faulted Freeman for not alleging\\nthat his alcoholism substantially limits a major life activity.\\n\\f6 No. 18-3737\\n\\nSee Tate, 809 F.3d at 345–46. But we read Freeman’s complaint\\nas alleging that the District regarded him as an alcoholic,\\nsee 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(C), because of his suspended license\\nfor driving under the influence of alcohol, and then it con-\\ncluded from his suspension that his alcoholism impaired his\\nability to work at any job that involves safely moving items\\nacross a facility. Because that activity includes a broad class of\\nwork, a jury could conclude that it is a major life activity.\\nSee 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i)(1); Miller v. Ill. Dept. of Transp.,\\n643 F.3d 190, 195–97 (7th Cir. 2011). Freeman also alleged that\\nhe could fulfill his duties with a reasonable accommodation\\n(bike, John Deere cart, or occupational permit), but that the\\nDistrict fired him anyway “due to” his alcoholism and his re-\\nquest to accommodate his condition. These allegations state\\nclaims for disability discrimination and retaliation.\\nSee 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(C); Gogos v. AMS Mech. Sys., Inc.,\\n737 F.3d 1170, 1172–73 (7th Cir. 2013).\\n We emphasize that we are holding only that these allega-\\ntions suffice to initiate Freeman’s litigation. Later proceedings\\nwill determine whether he can prove them. For example, as\\nthe district court anticipated, Freeman will need to prove that\\nhis disability and his request for an accommodation, as op-\\nposed to the suspension of his driver’s license (which he al-\\nleges he is not required to have for the job), motivated his dis-\\ncharge. We have recognized that alcoholism does not “cause”\\na license suspension for driving under the influence of alco-\\nhol, and so a sincere reliance on an employee’s license suspen-\\nsion may justify an adverse employment action. Despears\\nv. Milwaukee Cty., 63 F.3d 635, 636–37 (7th Cir. 1995). But for\\nnow his allegations say enough.\\n\\fNo. 18-3737 7\\n\\n That brings us to Freeman’s contention that his allegation\\nthat a District “policy” caused his discharge should also have\\npassed muster. To succeed on this type of claim under § 1983,\\nhe had to allege that a District policy, custom, or act by a final\\ndecisionmaker caused him to suffer a constitutional injury.\\nMonell, 436 U.S. at 694–95; Spiegel v. McClintic, 916 F.3d 611,\\n617 (7th Cir. 2019). (The same is true for his discrimination\\nclaim under § 1981; that law does not create a private right of\\naction against public bodies unless the plaintiff has raised Mo-\\nnell allegations. See Campbell v. Forest Preserve Dist. of Cook\\nCty., 752 F.3d 665, 667, 669 (7th Cir. 2014).) Freeman alleges\\nthat the District disproportionately fires probationary em-\\nployees who are African-American. But Freeman does not al-\\nlege whether the policy is to treat African-Americans dispar-\\nately or that the District’s probation powers have a disparate\\nimpact on them. The legal consequences are different.\\nSee Lewis v. City of Chicago, 560 U.S. 205, 214–15 (2010) (ex-\\nplaining that disparate-treatment claims require showing of\\nintent, but disparate-impact claims do not). Because the dis-\\ntrict court recruited four attorneys to assist Freeman with\\npleading this claim adequately, and he had four opportunities\\nto amend his complaint to do so and yet never did, we see no\\nabuse of discretion in the dismissal of this claim without ad-\\nditional leave to amend. See FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2); Lee v. Ne.\\nIll. Reg’l Commuter R.R., 912 F.3d 1049, 1052–53 (7th Cir. 2019).\\n This leaves one final matter. Mindful of the case-manage-\\nment difficulties to which we alluded earlier, we have consid-\\nered whether we should affirm the district court’s dismissal\\non another ground: Freeman’s arguable failure, even in his\\nfourth and operative complaint, to comply with Rule 8(a)’s\\nrequirement of brevity and clarity. See Bennett, 153 F.3d\\nat 518. But because Freeman’s complaint—though\\n\\f8 No. 18-3737\\n\\nunwieldy—adequately states his claims, we and the district\\ncourt may ignore the excess in his complaint. Id.\\n We thus VACATE the judgment and REMAND for further\\nproceedings with respect to Freeman’s race and disability dis-\\ncrimination claims. We AFFIRM with respect to his Monell\\nclaim.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4407103/\", \"author_raw\": \"PER CURIAM\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"WOOD"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"EASTERBROOK"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"ROVNER"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"WOOD\": \", Chief\", \"EASTERBROOK\": \", Circuit\", \"ROVNER\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4629850/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":6,"string":"6"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Shaka FREEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO, Defendant-Appellee.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-06-14\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-3737\nSHAKA FREEMAN,\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\n v.\n\nMETROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION\nDISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO,\n Defendant-Appellee.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 17 C 4409 — Harry D. Leinenweber, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n SUBMITTED MAY 30, 2019 1 — DECIDED JUNE 14, 2019 2\n ____________________\n\n\n\n\n 1 We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because\nthe briefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments,\nand oral argument would not significantly aid the court. FED. R. APP.\nP. 34(a)(2)(C).\n 2 This opinion was originally issued as a nonprecedential order on\nJune 3, 2019. The court has decided to re-issue it as a precedential opinion.\n\f2 No. 18-3737\n\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and ROVNER,\nCircuit Judges.\n PER CURIAM, Shaka Freeman, an African-American man\nwho suffers from alcoholism, sued the Water Reclamation\nDistrict of Greater Chicago, his former employer, for firing\nhim because of his race and disability. The district court dis-\nmissed his complaint for failure to state a claim. See FED. R.\nCIV. P. 12(b)(6). We conclude, however, that Freeman has\npleaded enough to state his discrimination claims, and so we\nvacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings with\nrespect to those issues. We affirm with respect to Freeman’s\ncontention that the District fired him pursuant to a policy that\nis unlawful under Monell v. Department of Social Services., 436\nU.S. 658, 694–95 (1978).\n For purposes of this appeal, we assume the truth of the\nallegations in Freeman’s complaint and its attachments.\nSee Carmody v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ill., 747 F.3d 470, 471\n(7th Cir. 2014). Freeman began working for the District in\nMay 2015 as an operator of a treatment plant. The District is a\nmunicipal corporation. See 70 ILCS 2605/1. Freeman’s job in-\nvolved the collection and transportation of temperature-sen-\nsitive water samples across the mile-long plant. Although op-\nerators typically transport these samples in District-owned\nvehicles, the job description does not require a driver’s li-\ncense. In his first year, Freeman, like all new hires, was a pro-\nbationary worker, employed at will. Id. at 2605/4.11. Once he\ncompleted his first year, the District would be able to fire him\nonly for cause.\n About three months after Freeman was hired, he was ar-\nrested for driving under the influence of alcohol and his li-\ncense was suspended for six months. Freeman began seeing a\n\fNo. 18-3737 3\n\nsubstance-abuse counselor for his alcohol problem. As re-\nquired by his job contract, he also told the District about the\nlicense suspension and his counseling. To ensure that con-\ncerns about his alcohol problem or license suspension did not\ninterfere with his job, he did three things: (1) he bought a bike\nand a cooler to transport samples around the plant, (2) he\nasked if he could use a John Deere go-cart, which does not\nrequire a driver’s license on private property, and (3) he ap-\nplied for an occupational driving permit from the state that\nwould permit him to drive a company vehicle while working.\n(The state authorized his permit conditional on the District’s\napproval, but the District refused to grant his request.) The\nDistrict fired Freeman while he was on probation, asserting\n“unsatisfactory performance.” Freeman alleges that this ex-\nplanation is pretextual; the District’s real reason for firing him\nhe said, was because of his race and because it regarded him\nas an alcoholic.\n Freeman sued the District for employment discrimination.\nIts path in the district court was a rocky one, and the case pre-\nsented some managerial challenges for the district court. At\nthe outset of the suit, the court recruited an attorney to repre-\nsent Freeman. That relationship broke down and the attorney\nwas excused; three additional attorneys followed. Each one\nmoved to withdraw because of disagreements with Freeman\nabout litigation strategy. Second, while proceeding pro se,\nFreeman filed three sprawling amended complaints, each\nover 70 pages. On the District’s motions, the judge dismissed\ntwo of these filings for failure to comply with the requirement\nunder Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) calling for a “short\nand plain statement of the claim.” Freeman withdrew the\nthird iteration.\n\f4 No. 18-3737\n\n His operative complaint—the fourth amended version—\nraises claims of race and disability discrimination and of re-\ntaliation, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, Title VII of the\nCivil Rights Act of 1964, id. § 2000e-2, and the Americans with\nDisabilities Act, id. at § 12112. He alleges that the District fired\nhim “due to his race” (African-American) and “disability” (al-\ncoholism). He next asserts that the District failed reasonably\nto accommodate his alcoholism by refusing to let him travel\naround the grounds of the plant without using a car. He also\naccuses the District of retaliating against him by firing him af-\nter he sought reasonable accommodations. Finally, he alleges\nthat the District fired him under an unconstitutional policy.\n The district court dismissed Freeman’s complaint with\nprejudice for failure to state a claim. Its opinion began with\nFreeman’s assertion that the District fired him because of his\nalcoholism. The court reasoned that Freeman pleaded neither\nthat his alcoholism caused “substantial limitations” to major\nlife activities nor that it caused his firing. Next, the court said,\nFreeman’s retaliation and reasonable-accommodations claims\nfailed because he had requested accommodations only for his\nlicense suspension, not his alcoholism. Turning to Freeman’s\nrace-discrimination claims under § 1983 and Title VII, the\ncourt ruled that Freeman “fail[ed] to plead the final ele-\nment”—that he was treated less favorably than at least one\ncolleague who was not African-American. Freeman had no\nclaim under § 1981 because, the court explained, that statute\ngenerally does not allow a private right of action against pub-\nlic actors. Finally, the court concluded that Freeman had not\nstated a “policy” claim under Monell because he had not iden-\ntified the policy or practice that he challenged.\n\fNo. 18-3737 5\n\n On appeal Freeman (still acting pro se) contends that his\ncomplaint sufficiently states each of his claims. He argues that\nthe district court erroneously “judg[ed] the truth of [his] fac-\ntual allegations,” including his allegation that the District’s\ndecision to fire him for “unsatisfactory performance” was pre-\ntextual.\n We conclude that the district court erred by demanding\ntoo much specificity in Freeman’s complaint. A plaintiff alleg-\ning race discrimination need not allege each evidentiary ele-\nment of a legal theory to survive a motion to dismiss.\nSwierkiewicz v. Sorema, N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 510–14 (2002); Ta-\nmayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1081 (7th Cir. 2008). Rather,\nto proceed against the District under § 1983 or Title VII, Free-\nman needed only to allege—as he did here—that the District\nfired him because of his race. Tamayo, 526 F.3d at 1084; see also\nBennett v. Schmidt, 153 F.3d 516, 518 (7th Cir. 1998) (“‘I was\nturned down for a job because of my race’ is all a complaint\nhas to say.”). His failure to plead the evidentiary element\nabout comparable coworkers, therefore, is not fatal.\n Similarly, Freeman has stated a claim for disability and re-\ntaliation claims under the ADA. The general rule in federal\ncourt calls only for notice pleading, see Erickson v. Pardus,\n551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007), but some theories of recovery require\nmore detail than others in order to give the required notice.\nThat is why we noted in Tate v. SCR Medical Transportation, 809\nF.3d 343, 345 (7th Cir. 2015), that a plaintiff advancing a claim\nunder the ADA must allege that he is disabled but, with or\nwithout reasonable accommodation, can still do the job. Nor-\nmally he also must allege what exactly makes him disabled.\n The district court here faulted Freeman for not alleging\nthat his alcoholism substantially limits a major life activity.\n\f6 No. 18-3737\n\nSee Tate, 809 F.3d at 345–46. But we read Freeman’s complaint\nas alleging that the District regarded him as an alcoholic,\nsee 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(C), because of his suspended license\nfor driving under the influence of alcohol, and then it con-\ncluded from his suspension that his alcoholism impaired his\nability to work at any job that involves safely moving items\nacross a facility. Because that activity includes a broad class of\nwork, a jury could conclude that it is a major life activity.\nSee 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i)(1); Miller v. Ill. Dept. of Transp.,\n643 F.3d 190, 195–97 (7th Cir. 2011). Freeman also alleged that\nhe could fulfill his duties with a reasonable accommodation\n(bike, John Deere cart, or occupational permit), but that the\nDistrict fired him anyway “due to” his alcoholism and his re-\nquest to accommodate his condition. These allegations state\nclaims for disability discrimination and retaliation.\nSee 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(C); Gogos v. AMS Mech. Sys., Inc.,\n737 F.3d 1170, 1172–73 (7th Cir. 2013).\n We emphasize that we are holding only that these allega-\ntions suffice to initiate Freeman’s litigation. Later proceedings\nwill determine whether he can prove them. For example, as\nthe district court anticipated, Freeman will need to prove that\nhis disability and his request for an accommodation, as op-\nposed to the suspension of his driver’s license (which he al-\nleges he is not required to have for the job), motivated his dis-\ncharge. We have recognized that alcoholism does not “cause”\na license suspension for driving under the influence of alco-\nhol, and so a sincere reliance on an employee’s license suspen-\nsion may justify an adverse employment action. Despears\nv. Milwaukee Cty., 63 F.3d 635, 636–37 (7th Cir. 1995). But for\nnow his allegations say enough.\n\fNo. 18-3737 7\n\n That brings us to Freeman’s contention that his allegation\nthat a District “policy” caused his discharge should also have\npassed muster. To succeed on this type of claim under § 1983,\nhe had to allege that a District policy, custom, or act by a final\ndecisionmaker caused him to suffer a constitutional injury.\nMonell, 436 U.S. at 694–95; Spiegel v. McClintic, 916 F.3d 611,\n617 (7th Cir. 2019). (The same is true for his discrimination\nclaim under § 1981; that law does not create a private right of\naction against public bodies unless the plaintiff has raised Mo-\nnell allegations. See Campbell v. Forest Preserve Dist. of Cook\nCty., 752 F.3d 665, 667, 669 (7th Cir. 2014).) Freeman alleges\nthat the District disproportionately fires probationary em-\nployees who are African-American. But Freeman does not al-\nlege whether the policy is to treat African-Americans dispar-\nately or that the District’s probation powers have a disparate\nimpact on them. The legal consequences are different.\nSee Lewis v. City of Chicago, 560 U.S. 205, 214–15 (2010) (ex-\nplaining that disparate-treatment claims require showing of\nintent, but disparate-impact claims do not). Because the dis-\ntrict court recruited four attorneys to assist Freeman with\npleading this claim adequately, and he had four opportunities\nto amend his complaint to do so and yet never did, we see no\nabuse of discretion in the dismissal of this claim without ad-\nditional leave to amend. See FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2); Lee v. Ne.\nIll. Reg’l Commuter R.R., 912 F.3d 1049, 1052–53 (7th Cir. 2019).\n This leaves one final matter. Mindful of the case-manage-\nment difficulties to which we alluded earlier, we have consid-\nered whether we should affirm the district court’s dismissal\non another ground: Freeman’s arguable failure, even in his\nfourth and operative complaint, to comply with Rule 8(a)’s\nrequirement of brevity and clarity. See Bennett, 153 F.3d\nat 518. But because Freeman’s complaint—though\n\f8 No. 18-3737\n\nunwieldy—adequately states his claims, we and the district\ncourt may ignore the excess in his complaint. Id.\n We thus VACATE the judgment and REMAND for further\nproceedings with respect to Freeman’s race and disability dis-\ncrimination claims. We AFFIRM with respect to his Monell\nclaim.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Shaka FREEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO, Defendant-Appellee.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-06-14\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-3737\\nSHAKA FREEMAN,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nMETROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION\\nDISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO,\\n Defendant-Appellee.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 17 C 4409 — Harry D. Leinenweber, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n SUBMITTED MAY 30, 2019 1 — DECIDED JUNE 14, 2019 2\\n ____________________\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 1 We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because\\nthe briefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments,\\nand oral argument would not significantly aid the court. FED. R. APP.\\nP. 34(a)(2)(C).\\n 2 This opinion was originally issued as a nonprecedential order on\\nJune 3, 2019. The court has decided to re-issue it as a precedential opinion.\\n\\f2 No. 18-3737\\n\\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and ROVNER,\\nCircuit Judges.\\n PER CURIAM, Shaka Freeman, an African-American man\\nwho suffers from alcoholism, sued the Water Reclamation\\nDistrict of Greater Chicago, his former employer, for firing\\nhim because of his race and disability. The district court dis-\\nmissed his complaint for failure to state a claim. See FED. R.\\nCIV. P. 12(b)(6). We conclude, however, that Freeman has\\npleaded enough to state his discrimination claims, and so we\\nvacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings with\\nrespect to those issues. We affirm with respect to Freeman’s\\ncontention that the District fired him pursuant to a policy that\\nis unlawful under Monell v. Department of Social Services., 436\\nU.S. 658, 694–95 (1978).\\n For purposes of this appeal, we assume the truth of the\\nallegations in Freeman’s complaint and its attachments.\\nSee Carmody v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ill., 747 F.3d 470, 471\\n(7th Cir. 2014). Freeman began working for the District in\\nMay 2015 as an operator of a treatment plant. The District is a\\nmunicipal corporation. See 70 ILCS 2605/1. Freeman’s job in-\\nvolved the collection and transportation of temperature-sen-\\nsitive water samples across the mile-long plant. Although op-\\nerators typically transport these samples in District-owned\\nvehicles, the job description does not require a driver’s li-\\ncense. In his first year, Freeman, like all new hires, was a pro-\\nbationary worker, employed at will. Id. at 2605/4.11. Once he\\ncompleted his first year, the District would be able to fire him\\nonly for cause.\\n About three months after Freeman was hired, he was ar-\\nrested for driving under the influence of alcohol and his li-\\ncense was suspended for six months. Freeman began seeing a\\n\\fNo. 18-3737 3\\n\\nsubstance-abuse counselor for his alcohol problem. As re-\\nquired by his job contract, he also told the District about the\\nlicense suspension and his counseling. To ensure that con-\\ncerns about his alcohol problem or license suspension did not\\ninterfere with his job, he did three things: (1) he bought a bike\\nand a cooler to transport samples around the plant, (2) he\\nasked if he could use a John Deere go-cart, which does not\\nrequire a driver’s license on private property, and (3) he ap-\\nplied for an occupational driving permit from the state that\\nwould permit him to drive a company vehicle while working.\\n(The state authorized his permit conditional on the District’s\\napproval, but the District refused to grant his request.) The\\nDistrict fired Freeman while he was on probation, asserting\\n“unsatisfactory performance.” Freeman alleges that this ex-\\nplanation is pretextual; the District’s real reason for firing him\\nhe said, was because of his race and because it regarded him\\nas an alcoholic.\\n Freeman sued the District for employment discrimination.\\nIts path in the district court was a rocky one, and the case pre-\\nsented some managerial challenges for the district court. At\\nthe outset of the suit, the court recruited an attorney to repre-\\nsent Freeman. That relationship broke down and the attorney\\nwas excused; three additional attorneys followed. Each one\\nmoved to withdraw because of disagreements with Freeman\\nabout litigation strategy. Second, while proceeding pro se,\\nFreeman filed three sprawling amended complaints, each\\nover 70 pages. On the District’s motions, the judge dismissed\\ntwo of these filings for failure to comply with the requirement\\nunder Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) calling for a “short\\nand plain statement of the claim.” Freeman withdrew the\\nthird iteration.\\n\\f4 No. 18-3737\\n\\n His operative complaint—the fourth amended version—\\nraises claims of race and disability discrimination and of re-\\ntaliation, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, Title VII of the\\nCivil Rights Act of 1964, id. § 2000e-2, and the Americans with\\nDisabilities Act, id. at § 12112. He alleges that the District fired\\nhim “due to his race” (African-American) and “disability” (al-\\ncoholism). He next asserts that the District failed reasonably\\nto accommodate his alcoholism by refusing to let him travel\\naround the grounds of the plant without using a car. He also\\naccuses the District of retaliating against him by firing him af-\\nter he sought reasonable accommodations. Finally, he alleges\\nthat the District fired him under an unconstitutional policy.\\n The district court dismissed Freeman’s complaint with\\nprejudice for failure to state a claim. Its opinion began with\\nFreeman’s assertion that the District fired him because of his\\nalcoholism. The court reasoned that Freeman pleaded neither\\nthat his alcoholism caused “substantial limitations” to major\\nlife activities nor that it caused his firing. Next, the court said,\\nFreeman’s retaliation and reasonable-accommodations claims\\nfailed because he had requested accommodations only for his\\nlicense suspension, not his alcoholism. Turning to Freeman’s\\nrace-discrimination claims under § 1983 and Title VII, the\\ncourt ruled that Freeman “fail[ed] to plead the final ele-\\nment”—that he was treated less favorably than at least one\\ncolleague who was not African-American. Freeman had no\\nclaim under § 1981 because, the court explained, that statute\\ngenerally does not allow a private right of action against pub-\\nlic actors. Finally, the court concluded that Freeman had not\\nstated a “policy” claim under Monell because he had not iden-\\ntified the policy or practice that he challenged.\\n\\fNo. 18-3737 5\\n\\n On appeal Freeman (still acting pro se) contends that his\\ncomplaint sufficiently states each of his claims. He argues that\\nthe district court erroneously “judg[ed] the truth of [his] fac-\\ntual allegations,” including his allegation that the District’s\\ndecision to fire him for “unsatisfactory performance” was pre-\\ntextual.\\n We conclude that the district court erred by demanding\\ntoo much specificity in Freeman’s complaint. A plaintiff alleg-\\ning race discrimination need not allege each evidentiary ele-\\nment of a legal theory to survive a motion to dismiss.\\nSwierkiewicz v. Sorema, N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 510–14 (2002); Ta-\\nmayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1081 (7th Cir. 2008). Rather,\\nto proceed against the District under § 1983 or Title VII, Free-\\nman needed only to allege—as he did here—that the District\\nfired him because of his race. Tamayo, 526 F.3d at 1084; see also\\nBennett v. Schmidt, 153 F.3d 516, 518 (7th Cir. 1998) (“‘I was\\nturned down for a job because of my race’ is all a complaint\\nhas to say.”). His failure to plead the evidentiary element\\nabout comparable coworkers, therefore, is not fatal.\\n Similarly, Freeman has stated a claim for disability and re-\\ntaliation claims under the ADA. The general rule in federal\\ncourt calls only for notice pleading, see Erickson v. Pardus,\\n551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007), but some theories of recovery require\\nmore detail than others in order to give the required notice.\\nThat is why we noted in Tate v. SCR Medical Transportation, 809\\nF.3d 343, 345 (7th Cir. 2015), that a plaintiff advancing a claim\\nunder the ADA must allege that he is disabled but, with or\\nwithout reasonable accommodation, can still do the job. Nor-\\nmally he also must allege what exactly makes him disabled.\\n The district court here faulted Freeman for not alleging\\nthat his alcoholism substantially limits a major life activity.\\n\\f6 No. 18-3737\\n\\nSee Tate, 809 F.3d at 345–46. But we read Freeman’s complaint\\nas alleging that the District regarded him as an alcoholic,\\nsee 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(C), because of his suspended license\\nfor driving under the influence of alcohol, and then it con-\\ncluded from his suspension that his alcoholism impaired his\\nability to work at any job that involves safely moving items\\nacross a facility. Because that activity includes a broad class of\\nwork, a jury could conclude that it is a major life activity.\\nSee 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i)(1); Miller v. Ill. Dept. of Transp.,\\n643 F.3d 190, 195–97 (7th Cir. 2011). Freeman also alleged that\\nhe could fulfill his duties with a reasonable accommodation\\n(bike, John Deere cart, or occupational permit), but that the\\nDistrict fired him anyway “due to” his alcoholism and his re-\\nquest to accommodate his condition. These allegations state\\nclaims for disability discrimination and retaliation.\\nSee 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(C); Gogos v. AMS Mech. Sys., Inc.,\\n737 F.3d 1170, 1172–73 (7th Cir. 2013).\\n We emphasize that we are holding only that these allega-\\ntions suffice to initiate Freeman’s litigation. Later proceedings\\nwill determine whether he can prove them. For example, as\\nthe district court anticipated, Freeman will need to prove that\\nhis disability and his request for an accommodation, as op-\\nposed to the suspension of his driver’s license (which he al-\\nleges he is not required to have for the job), motivated his dis-\\ncharge. We have recognized that alcoholism does not “cause”\\na license suspension for driving under the influence of alco-\\nhol, and so a sincere reliance on an employee’s license suspen-\\nsion may justify an adverse employment action. Despears\\nv. Milwaukee Cty., 63 F.3d 635, 636–37 (7th Cir. 1995). But for\\nnow his allegations say enough.\\n\\fNo. 18-3737 7\\n\\n That brings us to Freeman’s contention that his allegation\\nthat a District “policy” caused his discharge should also have\\npassed muster. To succeed on this type of claim under § 1983,\\nhe had to allege that a District policy, custom, or act by a final\\ndecisionmaker caused him to suffer a constitutional injury.\\nMonell, 436 U.S. at 694–95; Spiegel v. McClintic, 916 F.3d 611,\\n617 (7th Cir. 2019). (The same is true for his discrimination\\nclaim under § 1981; that law does not create a private right of\\naction against public bodies unless the plaintiff has raised Mo-\\nnell allegations. See Campbell v. Forest Preserve Dist. of Cook\\nCty., 752 F.3d 665, 667, 669 (7th Cir. 2014).) Freeman alleges\\nthat the District disproportionately fires probationary em-\\nployees who are African-American. But Freeman does not al-\\nlege whether the policy is to treat African-Americans dispar-\\nately or that the District’s probation powers have a disparate\\nimpact on them. The legal consequences are different.\\nSee Lewis v. City of Chicago, 560 U.S. 205, 214–15 (2010) (ex-\\nplaining that disparate-treatment claims require showing of\\nintent, but disparate-impact claims do not). Because the dis-\\ntrict court recruited four attorneys to assist Freeman with\\npleading this claim adequately, and he had four opportunities\\nto amend his complaint to do so and yet never did, we see no\\nabuse of discretion in the dismissal of this claim without ad-\\nditional leave to amend. See FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2); Lee v. Ne.\\nIll. Reg’l Commuter R.R., 912 F.3d 1049, 1052–53 (7th Cir. 2019).\\n This leaves one final matter. Mindful of the case-manage-\\nment difficulties to which we alluded earlier, we have consid-\\nered whether we should affirm the district court’s dismissal\\non another ground: Freeman’s arguable failure, even in his\\nfourth and operative complaint, to comply with Rule 8(a)’s\\nrequirement of brevity and clarity. See Bennett, 153 F.3d\\nat 518. But because Freeman’s complaint—though\\n\\f8 No. 18-3737\\n\\nunwieldy—adequately states his claims, we and the district\\ncourt may ignore the excess in his complaint. Id.\\n We thus VACATE the judgment and REMAND for further\\nproceedings with respect to Freeman’s race and disability dis-\\ncrimination claims. We AFFIRM with respect to his Monell\\nclaim.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2583,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4629895,"string":"4,629,895"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Shaka Freeman v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-06-14"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-3737"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"PER CURIAM\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-3737\\nSHAKA FREEMAN,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nMETROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION\\nDISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO,\\n Defendant-Appellee.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 17 C 4409 — Harry D. Leinenweber, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n SUBMITTED MAY 30, 2019 1 — DECIDED JUNE 14, 2019 2\\n ____________________\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 1 We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because\\nthe briefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments,\\nand oral argument would not significantly aid the court. FED. R. APP.\\nP. 34(a)(2)(C).\\n 2 This opinion was originally issued as a nonprecedential order on\\nJune 3, 2019. The court has decided to re-issue it as a precedential opinion.\\n\\f2 No. 18-3737\\n\\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and ROVNER,\\nCircuit Judges.\\n PER CURIAM, Shaka Freeman, an African-American man\\nwho suffers from alcoholism, sued the Water Reclamation\\nDistrict of Greater Chicago, his former employer, for firing\\nhim because of his race and disability. The district court dis-\\nmissed his complaint for failure to state a claim. See FED. R.\\nCIV. P. 12(b)(6). We conclude, however, that Freeman has\\npleaded enough to state his discrimination claims, and so we\\nvacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings with\\nrespect to those issues. We affirm with respect to Freeman’s\\ncontention that the District fired him pursuant to a policy that\\nis unlawful under Monell v. Department of Social Services., 436\\nU.S. 658, 694–95 (1978).\\n For purposes of this appeal, we assume the truth of the\\nallegations in Freeman’s complaint and its attachments.\\nSee Carmody v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ill., 747 F.3d 470, 471\\n(7th Cir. 2014). Freeman began working for the District in\\nMay 2015 as an operator of a treatment plant. The District is a\\nmunicipal corporation. See 70 ILCS 2605/1. Freeman’s job in-\\nvolved the collection and transportation of temperature-sen-\\nsitive water samples across the mile-long plant. Although op-\\nerators typically transport these samples in District-owned\\nvehicles, the job description does not require a driver’s li-\\ncense. In his first year, Freeman, like all new hires, was a pro-\\nbationary worker, employed at will. Id. at 2605/4.11. Once he\\ncompleted his first year, the District would be able to fire him\\nonly for cause.\\n About three months after Freeman was hired, he was ar-\\nrested for driving under the influence of alcohol and his li-\\ncense was suspended for six months. Freeman began seeing a\\n\\fNo. 18-3737 3\\n\\nsubstance-abuse counselor for his alcohol problem. As re-\\nquired by his job contract, he also told the District about the\\nlicense suspension and his counseling. To ensure that con-\\ncerns about his alcohol problem or license suspension did not\\ninterfere with his job, he did three things: (1) he bought a bike\\nand a cooler to transport samples around the plant, (2) he\\nasked if he could use a John Deere go-cart, which does not\\nrequire a driver’s license on private property, and (3) he ap-\\nplied for an occupational driving permit from the state that\\nwould permit him to drive a company vehicle while working.\\n(The state authorized his permit conditional on the District’s\\napproval, but the District refused to grant his request.) The\\nDistrict fired Freeman while he was on probation, asserting\\n“unsatisfactory performance.” Freeman alleges that this ex-\\nplanation is pretextual; the District’s real reason for firing him\\nhe said, was because of his race and because it regarded him\\nas an alcoholic.\\n Freeman sued the District for employment discrimination.\\nIts path in the district court was a rocky one, and the case pre-\\nsented some managerial challenges for the district court. At\\nthe outset of the suit, the court recruited an attorney to repre-\\nsent Freeman. That relationship broke down and the attorney\\nwas excused; three additional attorneys followed. Each one\\nmoved to withdraw because of disagreements with Freeman\\nabout litigation strategy. Second, while proceeding pro se,\\nFreeman filed three sprawling amended complaints, each\\nover 70 pages. On the District’s motions, the judge dismissed\\ntwo of these filings for failure to comply with the requirement\\nunder Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) calling for a “short\\nand plain statement of the claim.” Freeman withdrew the\\nthird iteration.\\n\\f4 No. 18-3737\\n\\n His operative complaint—the fourth amended version—\\nraises claims of race and disability discrimination and of re-\\ntaliation, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, Title VII of the\\nCivil Rights Act of 1964, id. § 2000e-2, and the Americans with\\nDisabilities Act, id. at § 12112. He alleges that the District fired\\nhim “due to his race” (African-American) and “disability” (al-\\ncoholism). He next asserts that the District failed reasonably\\nto accommodate his alcoholism by refusing to let him travel\\naround the grounds of the plant without using a car. He also\\naccuses the District of retaliating against him by firing him af-\\nter he sought reasonable accommodations. Finally, he alleges\\nthat the District fired him under an unconstitutional policy.\\n The district court dismissed Freeman’s complaint with\\nprejudice for failure to state a claim. Its opinion began with\\nFreeman’s assertion that the District fired him because of his\\nalcoholism. The court reasoned that Freeman pleaded neither\\nthat his alcoholism caused “substantial limitations” to major\\nlife activities nor that it caused his firing. Next, the court said,\\nFreeman’s retaliation and reasonable-accommodations claims\\nfailed because he had requested accommodations only for his\\nlicense suspension, not his alcoholism. Turning to Freeman’s\\nrace-discrimination claims under § 1983 and Title VII, the\\ncourt ruled that Freeman “fail[ed] to plead the final ele-\\nment”—that he was treated less favorably than at least one\\ncolleague who was not African-American. Freeman had no\\nclaim under § 1981 because, the court explained, that statute\\ngenerally does not allow a private right of action against pub-\\nlic actors. Finally, the court concluded that Freeman had not\\nstated a “policy” claim under Monell because he had not iden-\\ntified the policy or practice that he challenged.\\n\\fNo. 18-3737 5\\n\\n On appeal Freeman (still acting pro se) contends that his\\ncomplaint sufficiently states each of his claims. He argues that\\nthe district court erroneously “judg[ed] the truth of [his] fac-\\ntual allegations,” including his allegation that the District’s\\ndecision to fire him for “unsatisfactory performance” was pre-\\ntextual.\\n We conclude that the district court erred by demanding\\ntoo much specificity in Freeman’s complaint. A plaintiff alleg-\\ning race discrimination need not allege each evidentiary ele-\\nment of a legal theory to survive a motion to dismiss.\\nSwierkiewicz v. Sorema, N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 510–14 (2002); Ta-\\nmayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1081 (7th Cir. 2008). Rather,\\nto proceed against the District under § 1983 or Title VII, Free-\\nman needed only to allege—as he did here—that the District\\nfired him because of his race. Tamayo, 526 F.3d at 1084; see also\\nBennett v. Schmidt, 153 F.3d 516, 518 (7th Cir. 1998) (“‘I was\\nturned down for a job because of my race’ is all a complaint\\nhas to say.”). His failure to plead the evidentiary element\\nabout comparable coworkers, therefore, is not fatal.\\n Similarly, Freeman has stated a claim for disability and re-\\ntaliation claims under the ADA. The general rule in federal\\ncourt calls only for notice pleading, see Erickson v. Pardus,\\n551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007), but some theories of recovery require\\nmore detail than others in order to give the required notice.\\nThat is why we noted in Tate v. SCR Medical Transportation, 809\\nF.3d 343, 345 (7th Cir. 2015), that a plaintiff advancing a claim\\nunder the ADA must allege that he is disabled but, with or\\nwithout reasonable accommodation, can still do the job. Nor-\\nmally he also must allege what exactly makes him disabled.\\n The district court here faulted Freeman for not alleging\\nthat his alcoholism substantially limits a major life activity.\\n\\f6 No. 18-3737\\n\\nSee Tate, 809 F.3d at 345–46. But we read Freeman’s complaint\\nas alleging that the District regarded him as an alcoholic,\\nsee 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(C), because of his suspended license\\nfor driving under the influence of alcohol, and then it con-\\ncluded from his suspension that his alcoholism impaired his\\nability to work at any job that involves safely moving items\\nacross a facility. Because that activity includes a broad class of\\nwork, a jury could conclude that it is a major life activity.\\nSee 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i)(1); Miller v. Ill. Dept. of Transp.,\\n643 F.3d 190, 195–97 (7th Cir. 2011). Freeman also alleged that\\nhe could fulfill his duties with a reasonable accommodation\\n(bike, John Deere cart, or occupational permit), but that the\\nDistrict fired him anyway “due to” his alcoholism and his re-\\nquest to accommodate his condition. These allegations state\\nclaims for disability discrimination and retaliation.\\nSee 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(C); Gogos v. AMS Mech. Sys., Inc.,\\n737 F.3d 1170, 1172–73 (7th Cir. 2013).\\n We emphasize that we are holding only that these allega-\\ntions suffice to initiate Freeman’s litigation. Later proceedings\\nwill determine whether he can prove them. For example, as\\nthe district court anticipated, Freeman will need to prove that\\nhis disability and his request for an accommodation, as op-\\nposed to the suspension of his driver’s license (which he al-\\nleges he is not required to have for the job), motivated his dis-\\ncharge. We have recognized that alcoholism does not “cause”\\na license suspension for driving under the influence of alco-\\nhol, and so a sincere reliance on an employee’s license suspen-\\nsion may justify an adverse employment action. Despears\\nv. Milwaukee Cty., 63 F.3d 635, 636–37 (7th Cir. 1995). But for\\nnow his allegations say enough.\\n\\fNo. 18-3737 7\\n\\n That brings us to Freeman’s contention that his allegation\\nthat a District “policy” caused his discharge should also have\\npassed muster. To succeed on this type of claim under § 1983,\\nhe had to allege that a District policy, custom, or act by a final\\ndecisionmaker caused him to suffer a constitutional injury.\\nMonell, 436 U.S. at 694–95; Spiegel v. McClintic, 916 F.3d 611,\\n617 (7th Cir. 2019). (The same is true for his discrimination\\nclaim under § 1981; that law does not create a private right of\\naction against public bodies unless the plaintiff has raised Mo-\\nnell allegations. See Campbell v. Forest Preserve Dist. of Cook\\nCty., 752 F.3d 665, 667, 669 (7th Cir. 2014).) Freeman alleges\\nthat the District disproportionately fires probationary em-\\nployees who are African-American. But Freeman does not al-\\nlege whether the policy is to treat African-Americans dispar-\\nately or that the District’s probation powers have a disparate\\nimpact on them. The legal consequences are different.\\nSee Lewis v. City of Chicago, 560 U.S. 205, 214–15 (2010) (ex-\\nplaining that disparate-treatment claims require showing of\\nintent, but disparate-impact claims do not). Because the dis-\\ntrict court recruited four attorneys to assist Freeman with\\npleading this claim adequately, and he had four opportunities\\nto amend his complaint to do so and yet never did, we see no\\nabuse of discretion in the dismissal of this claim without ad-\\nditional leave to amend. See FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2); Lee v. Ne.\\nIll. Reg’l Commuter R.R., 912 F.3d 1049, 1052–53 (7th Cir. 2019).\\n This leaves one final matter. Mindful of the case-manage-\\nment difficulties to which we alluded earlier, we have consid-\\nered whether we should affirm the district court’s dismissal\\non another ground: Freeman’s arguable failure, even in his\\nfourth and operative complaint, to comply with Rule 8(a)’s\\nrequirement of brevity and clarity. See Bennett, 153 F.3d\\nat 518. But because Freeman’s complaint—though\\n\\f8 No. 18-3737\\n\\nunwieldy—adequately states his claims, we and the district\\ncourt may ignore the excess in his complaint. Id.\\n We thus VACATE the judgment and REMAND for further\\nproceedings with respect to Freeman’s race and disability dis-\\ncrimination claims. We AFFIRM with respect to his Monell\\nclaim.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4407148/\", \"author_raw\": \"PER CURIAM\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"WOOD"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"EASTERBROOK"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"ROVNER"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"WOOD\": \", Chief\", \"EASTERBROOK\": \", Circuit\", \"ROVNER\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4629895/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":6,"string":"6"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Shaka Freeman v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-06-14\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-3737\nSHAKA FREEMAN,\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\n v.\n\nMETROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION\nDISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO,\n Defendant-Appellee.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 17 C 4409 — Harry D. Leinenweber, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n SUBMITTED MAY 30, 2019 1 — DECIDED JUNE 14, 2019 2\n ____________________\n\n\n\n\n 1 We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because\nthe briefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments,\nand oral argument would not significantly aid the court. FED. R. APP.\nP. 34(a)(2)(C).\n 2 This opinion was originally issued as a nonprecedential order on\nJune 3, 2019. The court has decided to re-issue it as a precedential opinion.\n\f2 No. 18-3737\n\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and ROVNER,\nCircuit Judges.\n PER CURIAM, Shaka Freeman, an African-American man\nwho suffers from alcoholism, sued the Water Reclamation\nDistrict of Greater Chicago, his former employer, for firing\nhim because of his race and disability. The district court dis-\nmissed his complaint for failure to state a claim. See FED. R.\nCIV. P. 12(b)(6). We conclude, however, that Freeman has\npleaded enough to state his discrimination claims, and so we\nvacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings with\nrespect to those issues. We affirm with respect to Freeman’s\ncontention that the District fired him pursuant to a policy that\nis unlawful under Monell v. Department of Social Services., 436\nU.S. 658, 694–95 (1978).\n For purposes of this appeal, we assume the truth of the\nallegations in Freeman’s complaint and its attachments.\nSee Carmody v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ill., 747 F.3d 470, 471\n(7th Cir. 2014). Freeman began working for the District in\nMay 2015 as an operator of a treatment plant. The District is a\nmunicipal corporation. See 70 ILCS 2605/1. Freeman’s job in-\nvolved the collection and transportation of temperature-sen-\nsitive water samples across the mile-long plant. Although op-\nerators typically transport these samples in District-owned\nvehicles, the job description does not require a driver’s li-\ncense. In his first year, Freeman, like all new hires, was a pro-\nbationary worker, employed at will. Id. at 2605/4.11. Once he\ncompleted his first year, the District would be able to fire him\nonly for cause.\n About three months after Freeman was hired, he was ar-\nrested for driving under the influence of alcohol and his li-\ncense was suspended for six months. Freeman began seeing a\n\fNo. 18-3737 3\n\nsubstance-abuse counselor for his alcohol problem. As re-\nquired by his job contract, he also told the District about the\nlicense suspension and his counseling. To ensure that con-\ncerns about his alcohol problem or license suspension did not\ninterfere with his job, he did three things: (1) he bought a bike\nand a cooler to transport samples around the plant, (2) he\nasked if he could use a John Deere go-cart, which does not\nrequire a driver’s license on private property, and (3) he ap-\nplied for an occupational driving permit from the state that\nwould permit him to drive a company vehicle while working.\n(The state authorized his permit conditional on the District’s\napproval, but the District refused to grant his request.) The\nDistrict fired Freeman while he was on probation, asserting\n“unsatisfactory performance.” Freeman alleges that this ex-\nplanation is pretextual; the District’s real reason for firing him\nhe said, was because of his race and because it regarded him\nas an alcoholic.\n Freeman sued the District for employment discrimination.\nIts path in the district court was a rocky one, and the case pre-\nsented some managerial challenges for the district court. At\nthe outset of the suit, the court recruited an attorney to repre-\nsent Freeman. That relationship broke down and the attorney\nwas excused; three additional attorneys followed. Each one\nmoved to withdraw because of disagreements with Freeman\nabout litigation strategy. Second, while proceeding pro se,\nFreeman filed three sprawling amended complaints, each\nover 70 pages. On the District’s motions, the judge dismissed\ntwo of these filings for failure to comply with the requirement\nunder Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) calling for a “short\nand plain statement of the claim.” Freeman withdrew the\nthird iteration.\n\f4 No. 18-3737\n\n His operative complaint—the fourth amended version—\nraises claims of race and disability discrimination and of re-\ntaliation, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, Title VII of the\nCivil Rights Act of 1964, id. § 2000e-2, and the Americans with\nDisabilities Act, id. at § 12112. He alleges that the District fired\nhim “due to his race” (African-American) and “disability” (al-\ncoholism). He next asserts that the District failed reasonably\nto accommodate his alcoholism by refusing to let him travel\naround the grounds of the plant without using a car. He also\naccuses the District of retaliating against him by firing him af-\nter he sought reasonable accommodations. Finally, he alleges\nthat the District fired him under an unconstitutional policy.\n The district court dismissed Freeman’s complaint with\nprejudice for failure to state a claim. Its opinion began with\nFreeman’s assertion that the District fired him because of his\nalcoholism. The court reasoned that Freeman pleaded neither\nthat his alcoholism caused “substantial limitations” to major\nlife activities nor that it caused his firing. Next, the court said,\nFreeman’s retaliation and reasonable-accommodations claims\nfailed because he had requested accommodations only for his\nlicense suspension, not his alcoholism. Turning to Freeman’s\nrace-discrimination claims under § 1983 and Title VII, the\ncourt ruled that Freeman “fail[ed] to plead the final ele-\nment”—that he was treated less favorably than at least one\ncolleague who was not African-American. Freeman had no\nclaim under § 1981 because, the court explained, that statute\ngenerally does not allow a private right of action against pub-\nlic actors. Finally, the court concluded that Freeman had not\nstated a “policy” claim under Monell because he had not iden-\ntified the policy or practice that he challenged.\n\fNo. 18-3737 5\n\n On appeal Freeman (still acting pro se) contends that his\ncomplaint sufficiently states each of his claims. He argues that\nthe district court erroneously “judg[ed] the truth of [his] fac-\ntual allegations,” including his allegation that the District’s\ndecision to fire him for “unsatisfactory performance” was pre-\ntextual.\n We conclude that the district court erred by demanding\ntoo much specificity in Freeman’s complaint. A plaintiff alleg-\ning race discrimination need not allege each evidentiary ele-\nment of a legal theory to survive a motion to dismiss.\nSwierkiewicz v. Sorema, N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 510–14 (2002); Ta-\nmayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1081 (7th Cir. 2008). Rather,\nto proceed against the District under § 1983 or Title VII, Free-\nman needed only to allege—as he did here—that the District\nfired him because of his race. Tamayo, 526 F.3d at 1084; see also\nBennett v. Schmidt, 153 F.3d 516, 518 (7th Cir. 1998) (“‘I was\nturned down for a job because of my race’ is all a complaint\nhas to say.”). His failure to plead the evidentiary element\nabout comparable coworkers, therefore, is not fatal.\n Similarly, Freeman has stated a claim for disability and re-\ntaliation claims under the ADA. The general rule in federal\ncourt calls only for notice pleading, see Erickson v. Pardus,\n551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007), but some theories of recovery require\nmore detail than others in order to give the required notice.\nThat is why we noted in Tate v. SCR Medical Transportation, 809\nF.3d 343, 345 (7th Cir. 2015), that a plaintiff advancing a claim\nunder the ADA must allege that he is disabled but, with or\nwithout reasonable accommodation, can still do the job. Nor-\nmally he also must allege what exactly makes him disabled.\n The district court here faulted Freeman for not alleging\nthat his alcoholism substantially limits a major life activity.\n\f6 No. 18-3737\n\nSee Tate, 809 F.3d at 345–46. But we read Freeman’s complaint\nas alleging that the District regarded him as an alcoholic,\nsee 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(C), because of his suspended license\nfor driving under the influence of alcohol, and then it con-\ncluded from his suspension that his alcoholism impaired his\nability to work at any job that involves safely moving items\nacross a facility. Because that activity includes a broad class of\nwork, a jury could conclude that it is a major life activity.\nSee 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i)(1); Miller v. Ill. Dept. of Transp.,\n643 F.3d 190, 195–97 (7th Cir. 2011). Freeman also alleged that\nhe could fulfill his duties with a reasonable accommodation\n(bike, John Deere cart, or occupational permit), but that the\nDistrict fired him anyway “due to” his alcoholism and his re-\nquest to accommodate his condition. These allegations state\nclaims for disability discrimination and retaliation.\nSee 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(C); Gogos v. AMS Mech. Sys., Inc.,\n737 F.3d 1170, 1172–73 (7th Cir. 2013).\n We emphasize that we are holding only that these allega-\ntions suffice to initiate Freeman’s litigation. Later proceedings\nwill determine whether he can prove them. For example, as\nthe district court anticipated, Freeman will need to prove that\nhis disability and his request for an accommodation, as op-\nposed to the suspension of his driver’s license (which he al-\nleges he is not required to have for the job), motivated his dis-\ncharge. We have recognized that alcoholism does not “cause”\na license suspension for driving under the influence of alco-\nhol, and so a sincere reliance on an employee’s license suspen-\nsion may justify an adverse employment action. Despears\nv. Milwaukee Cty., 63 F.3d 635, 636–37 (7th Cir. 1995). But for\nnow his allegations say enough.\n\fNo. 18-3737 7\n\n That brings us to Freeman’s contention that his allegation\nthat a District “policy” caused his discharge should also have\npassed muster. To succeed on this type of claim under § 1983,\nhe had to allege that a District policy, custom, or act by a final\ndecisionmaker caused him to suffer a constitutional injury.\nMonell, 436 U.S. at 694–95; Spiegel v. McClintic, 916 F.3d 611,\n617 (7th Cir. 2019). (The same is true for his discrimination\nclaim under § 1981; that law does not create a private right of\naction against public bodies unless the plaintiff has raised Mo-\nnell allegations. See Campbell v. Forest Preserve Dist. of Cook\nCty., 752 F.3d 665, 667, 669 (7th Cir. 2014).) Freeman alleges\nthat the District disproportionately fires probationary em-\nployees who are African-American. But Freeman does not al-\nlege whether the policy is to treat African-Americans dispar-\nately or that the District’s probation powers have a disparate\nimpact on them. The legal consequences are different.\nSee Lewis v. City of Chicago, 560 U.S. 205, 214–15 (2010) (ex-\nplaining that disparate-treatment claims require showing of\nintent, but disparate-impact claims do not). Because the dis-\ntrict court recruited four attorneys to assist Freeman with\npleading this claim adequately, and he had four opportunities\nto amend his complaint to do so and yet never did, we see no\nabuse of discretion in the dismissal of this claim without ad-\nditional leave to amend. See FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2); Lee v. Ne.\nIll. Reg’l Commuter R.R., 912 F.3d 1049, 1052–53 (7th Cir. 2019).\n This leaves one final matter. Mindful of the case-manage-\nment difficulties to which we alluded earlier, we have consid-\nered whether we should affirm the district court’s dismissal\non another ground: Freeman’s arguable failure, even in his\nfourth and operative complaint, to comply with Rule 8(a)’s\nrequirement of brevity and clarity. See Bennett, 153 F.3d\nat 518. But because Freeman’s complaint—though\n\f8 No. 18-3737\n\nunwieldy—adequately states his claims, we and the district\ncourt may ignore the excess in his complaint. Id.\n We thus VACATE the judgment and REMAND for further\nproceedings with respect to Freeman’s race and disability dis-\ncrimination claims. We AFFIRM with respect to his Monell\nclaim.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Shaka Freeman v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-06-14\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-3737\\nSHAKA FREEMAN,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nMETROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION\\nDISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO,\\n Defendant-Appellee.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 17 C 4409 — Harry D. Leinenweber, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n SUBMITTED MAY 30, 2019 1 — DECIDED JUNE 14, 2019 2\\n ____________________\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 1 We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because\\nthe briefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments,\\nand oral argument would not significantly aid the court. FED. R. APP.\\nP. 34(a)(2)(C).\\n 2 This opinion was originally issued as a nonprecedential order on\\nJune 3, 2019. The court has decided to re-issue it as a precedential opinion.\\n\\f2 No. 18-3737\\n\\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and ROVNER,\\nCircuit Judges.\\n PER CURIAM, Shaka Freeman, an African-American man\\nwho suffers from alcoholism, sued the Water Reclamation\\nDistrict of Greater Chicago, his former employer, for firing\\nhim because of his race and disability. The district court dis-\\nmissed his complaint for failure to state a claim. See FED. R.\\nCIV. P. 12(b)(6). We conclude, however, that Freeman has\\npleaded enough to state his discrimination claims, and so we\\nvacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings with\\nrespect to those issues. We affirm with respect to Freeman’s\\ncontention that the District fired him pursuant to a policy that\\nis unlawful under Monell v. Department of Social Services., 436\\nU.S. 658, 694–95 (1978).\\n For purposes of this appeal, we assume the truth of the\\nallegations in Freeman’s complaint and its attachments.\\nSee Carmody v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ill., 747 F.3d 470, 471\\n(7th Cir. 2014). Freeman began working for the District in\\nMay 2015 as an operator of a treatment plant. The District is a\\nmunicipal corporation. See 70 ILCS 2605/1. Freeman’s job in-\\nvolved the collection and transportation of temperature-sen-\\nsitive water samples across the mile-long plant. Although op-\\nerators typically transport these samples in District-owned\\nvehicles, the job description does not require a driver’s li-\\ncense. In his first year, Freeman, like all new hires, was a pro-\\nbationary worker, employed at will. Id. at 2605/4.11. Once he\\ncompleted his first year, the District would be able to fire him\\nonly for cause.\\n About three months after Freeman was hired, he was ar-\\nrested for driving under the influence of alcohol and his li-\\ncense was suspended for six months. Freeman began seeing a\\n\\fNo. 18-3737 3\\n\\nsubstance-abuse counselor for his alcohol problem. As re-\\nquired by his job contract, he also told the District about the\\nlicense suspension and his counseling. To ensure that con-\\ncerns about his alcohol problem or license suspension did not\\ninterfere with his job, he did three things: (1) he bought a bike\\nand a cooler to transport samples around the plant, (2) he\\nasked if he could use a John Deere go-cart, which does not\\nrequire a driver’s license on private property, and (3) he ap-\\nplied for an occupational driving permit from the state that\\nwould permit him to drive a company vehicle while working.\\n(The state authorized his permit conditional on the District’s\\napproval, but the District refused to grant his request.) The\\nDistrict fired Freeman while he was on probation, asserting\\n“unsatisfactory performance.” Freeman alleges that this ex-\\nplanation is pretextual; the District’s real reason for firing him\\nhe said, was because of his race and because it regarded him\\nas an alcoholic.\\n Freeman sued the District for employment discrimination.\\nIts path in the district court was a rocky one, and the case pre-\\nsented some managerial challenges for the district court. At\\nthe outset of the suit, the court recruited an attorney to repre-\\nsent Freeman. That relationship broke down and the attorney\\nwas excused; three additional attorneys followed. Each one\\nmoved to withdraw because of disagreements with Freeman\\nabout litigation strategy. Second, while proceeding pro se,\\nFreeman filed three sprawling amended complaints, each\\nover 70 pages. On the District’s motions, the judge dismissed\\ntwo of these filings for failure to comply with the requirement\\nunder Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) calling for a “short\\nand plain statement of the claim.” Freeman withdrew the\\nthird iteration.\\n\\f4 No. 18-3737\\n\\n His operative complaint—the fourth amended version—\\nraises claims of race and disability discrimination and of re-\\ntaliation, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, Title VII of the\\nCivil Rights Act of 1964, id. § 2000e-2, and the Americans with\\nDisabilities Act, id. at § 12112. He alleges that the District fired\\nhim “due to his race” (African-American) and “disability” (al-\\ncoholism). He next asserts that the District failed reasonably\\nto accommodate his alcoholism by refusing to let him travel\\naround the grounds of the plant without using a car. He also\\naccuses the District of retaliating against him by firing him af-\\nter he sought reasonable accommodations. Finally, he alleges\\nthat the District fired him under an unconstitutional policy.\\n The district court dismissed Freeman’s complaint with\\nprejudice for failure to state a claim. Its opinion began with\\nFreeman’s assertion that the District fired him because of his\\nalcoholism. The court reasoned that Freeman pleaded neither\\nthat his alcoholism caused “substantial limitations” to major\\nlife activities nor that it caused his firing. Next, the court said,\\nFreeman’s retaliation and reasonable-accommodations claims\\nfailed because he had requested accommodations only for his\\nlicense suspension, not his alcoholism. Turning to Freeman’s\\nrace-discrimination claims under § 1983 and Title VII, the\\ncourt ruled that Freeman “fail[ed] to plead the final ele-\\nment”—that he was treated less favorably than at least one\\ncolleague who was not African-American. Freeman had no\\nclaim under § 1981 because, the court explained, that statute\\ngenerally does not allow a private right of action against pub-\\nlic actors. Finally, the court concluded that Freeman had not\\nstated a “policy” claim under Monell because he had not iden-\\ntified the policy or practice that he challenged.\\n\\fNo. 18-3737 5\\n\\n On appeal Freeman (still acting pro se) contends that his\\ncomplaint sufficiently states each of his claims. He argues that\\nthe district court erroneously “judg[ed] the truth of [his] fac-\\ntual allegations,” including his allegation that the District’s\\ndecision to fire him for “unsatisfactory performance” was pre-\\ntextual.\\n We conclude that the district court erred by demanding\\ntoo much specificity in Freeman’s complaint. A plaintiff alleg-\\ning race discrimination need not allege each evidentiary ele-\\nment of a legal theory to survive a motion to dismiss.\\nSwierkiewicz v. Sorema, N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 510–14 (2002); Ta-\\nmayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1081 (7th Cir. 2008). Rather,\\nto proceed against the District under § 1983 or Title VII, Free-\\nman needed only to allege—as he did here—that the District\\nfired him because of his race. Tamayo, 526 F.3d at 1084; see also\\nBennett v. Schmidt, 153 F.3d 516, 518 (7th Cir. 1998) (“‘I was\\nturned down for a job because of my race’ is all a complaint\\nhas to say.”). His failure to plead the evidentiary element\\nabout comparable coworkers, therefore, is not fatal.\\n Similarly, Freeman has stated a claim for disability and re-\\ntaliation claims under the ADA. The general rule in federal\\ncourt calls only for notice pleading, see Erickson v. Pardus,\\n551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007), but some theories of recovery require\\nmore detail than others in order to give the required notice.\\nThat is why we noted in Tate v. SCR Medical Transportation, 809\\nF.3d 343, 345 (7th Cir. 2015), that a plaintiff advancing a claim\\nunder the ADA must allege that he is disabled but, with or\\nwithout reasonable accommodation, can still do the job. Nor-\\nmally he also must allege what exactly makes him disabled.\\n The district court here faulted Freeman for not alleging\\nthat his alcoholism substantially limits a major life activity.\\n\\f6 No. 18-3737\\n\\nSee Tate, 809 F.3d at 345–46. But we read Freeman’s complaint\\nas alleging that the District regarded him as an alcoholic,\\nsee 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(C), because of his suspended license\\nfor driving under the influence of alcohol, and then it con-\\ncluded from his suspension that his alcoholism impaired his\\nability to work at any job that involves safely moving items\\nacross a facility. Because that activity includes a broad class of\\nwork, a jury could conclude that it is a major life activity.\\nSee 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i)(1); Miller v. Ill. Dept. of Transp.,\\n643 F.3d 190, 195–97 (7th Cir. 2011). Freeman also alleged that\\nhe could fulfill his duties with a reasonable accommodation\\n(bike, John Deere cart, or occupational permit), but that the\\nDistrict fired him anyway “due to” his alcoholism and his re-\\nquest to accommodate his condition. These allegations state\\nclaims for disability discrimination and retaliation.\\nSee 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(C); Gogos v. AMS Mech. Sys., Inc.,\\n737 F.3d 1170, 1172–73 (7th Cir. 2013).\\n We emphasize that we are holding only that these allega-\\ntions suffice to initiate Freeman’s litigation. Later proceedings\\nwill determine whether he can prove them. For example, as\\nthe district court anticipated, Freeman will need to prove that\\nhis disability and his request for an accommodation, as op-\\nposed to the suspension of his driver’s license (which he al-\\nleges he is not required to have for the job), motivated his dis-\\ncharge. We have recognized that alcoholism does not “cause”\\na license suspension for driving under the influence of alco-\\nhol, and so a sincere reliance on an employee’s license suspen-\\nsion may justify an adverse employment action. Despears\\nv. Milwaukee Cty., 63 F.3d 635, 636–37 (7th Cir. 1995). But for\\nnow his allegations say enough.\\n\\fNo. 18-3737 7\\n\\n That brings us to Freeman’s contention that his allegation\\nthat a District “policy” caused his discharge should also have\\npassed muster. To succeed on this type of claim under § 1983,\\nhe had to allege that a District policy, custom, or act by a final\\ndecisionmaker caused him to suffer a constitutional injury.\\nMonell, 436 U.S. at 694–95; Spiegel v. McClintic, 916 F.3d 611,\\n617 (7th Cir. 2019). (The same is true for his discrimination\\nclaim under § 1981; that law does not create a private right of\\naction against public bodies unless the plaintiff has raised Mo-\\nnell allegations. See Campbell v. Forest Preserve Dist. of Cook\\nCty., 752 F.3d 665, 667, 669 (7th Cir. 2014).) Freeman alleges\\nthat the District disproportionately fires probationary em-\\nployees who are African-American. But Freeman does not al-\\nlege whether the policy is to treat African-Americans dispar-\\nately or that the District’s probation powers have a disparate\\nimpact on them. The legal consequences are different.\\nSee Lewis v. City of Chicago, 560 U.S. 205, 214–15 (2010) (ex-\\nplaining that disparate-treatment claims require showing of\\nintent, but disparate-impact claims do not). Because the dis-\\ntrict court recruited four attorneys to assist Freeman with\\npleading this claim adequately, and he had four opportunities\\nto amend his complaint to do so and yet never did, we see no\\nabuse of discretion in the dismissal of this claim without ad-\\nditional leave to amend. See FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2); Lee v. Ne.\\nIll. Reg’l Commuter R.R., 912 F.3d 1049, 1052–53 (7th Cir. 2019).\\n This leaves one final matter. Mindful of the case-manage-\\nment difficulties to which we alluded earlier, we have consid-\\nered whether we should affirm the district court’s dismissal\\non another ground: Freeman’s arguable failure, even in his\\nfourth and operative complaint, to comply with Rule 8(a)’s\\nrequirement of brevity and clarity. See Bennett, 153 F.3d\\nat 518. But because Freeman’s complaint—though\\n\\f8 No. 18-3737\\n\\nunwieldy—adequately states his claims, we and the district\\ncourt may ignore the excess in his complaint. Id.\\n We thus VACATE the judgment and REMAND for further\\nproceedings with respect to Freeman’s race and disability dis-\\ncrimination claims. We AFFIRM with respect to his Monell\\nclaim.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2584,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4629896,"string":"4,629,896"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Harold Wade v. Kreisler Law, P.C."},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-06-14"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-2564"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before KANNE, SYKES, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Diane S. Sykes\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-2564\\nIN RE:\\n HAROLD WADE and LORRAINE WADE,\\n Debtors-Appellants.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 15-BK-01035 — LaShonda A. Hunt, Bankruptcy Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED FEBRUARY 6, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 14, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before KANNE, SYKES, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.\\n SYKES, Circuit Judge. Debtors Harold and Lorraine Wade\\nmoved for sanctions against Kreisler Law, P.C., alleging that\\nthe law firm violated the automatic stay arising from their\\nbankruptcy petition by filing a lien against Lorraine’s home.\\nThe couple had voluntarily dismissed a prior bankruptcy\\npetition just a few months earlier, so the bankruptcy judge\\ndenied their motion based on 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3), which\\nlifts the automatic stay after 30 days in the case of a succes-\\nsive petition. But the bankruptcy courts are divided over the\\nproper interpretation of § 362(c)(3), so the judge certified her\\n\\f2 No. 18-2564\\n\\norder for direct appeal to this court under 28 U.S.C.\\n§ 158(d)(2)(A). A timely notice of appeal followed.\\n But the Wades never filed a petition for permission to\\nappeal as required by Rule 8006(g) of the Federal Rules of\\nBankruptcy Procedure. Kreisler moved to dismiss the appeal\\nbased on this omission. We provisionally accepted the\\nappeal and directed the parties to address the effect of the\\nprocedural violation in their merits briefs.\\n We now dismiss the appeal. Rule 8006(g) is a mandatory\\nclaim-processing rule, and if properly invoked, it must be\\nenforced. See Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of Chi.,\\n138 S. Ct. 13, 17 (2017). Because Kreisler properly objected,\\nthe appeal must be dismissed.\\n I. Background\\n The Wades filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition in\\nJanuary 2015, which automatically stayed any collection\\nactions against their property. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). But the\\npetition was successive—they had voluntarily dismissed a\\ndifferent petition two months earlier—and § 362(c)(3) states\\nthat if a prior petition “was pending within the preceding\\n1-year period but was dismissed,” the automatic stay “shall\\nterminate with respect to the debtor on the 30th day after the\\nfiling of the later case.”\\n Just how much of the stay was lifted became relevant af-\\nter the Wades discovered that Kreisler recorded a lien\\nagainst Lorraine’s home in April 2015. Because their bank-\\nruptcy case was active at that time, the Wades moved in the\\nbankruptcy court to sanction Kreisler for violating the stay.\\n The parties disagreed about the meaning of § 362(c)(3).\\nKreisler contended that it lifts the entire stay. The Wades\\n\\fNo. 18-2564 3\\n\\nargued that the phrase “with respect to the debtor” limits\\nthe statute’s effect so that it lifts the stay only for non-estate\\nproperty. In their view the stay still prevented Kreisler from\\nrecording the lien because Lorraine’s house was estate\\nproperty.\\n The bankruptcy judge denied the Wades’ motion, con-\\ncluding that the entire stay lifted in February 2015, which\\nvalidated Kreisler’s April 2015 lien. The Wades appealed to\\nthe district court. But they also asked the bankruptcy judge\\nto certify her order for direct appeal to this court under\\n§ 158(d)(2)(A). The judge granted that request and issued a\\ncertification order. The Wades then filed a notice of appeal,\\nbut they never filed a petition for permission to appeal as\\nrequired by Rule 8006(g) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy\\nProcedure. Kreisler moved to dismiss based on this proce-\\ndural oversight. We provisionally accepted the appeal but\\ninstructed the parties to brief the dismissal motion with the\\nmerits.\\n II. Discussion\\n We begin (and end) with the question whether the failure\\nto file a petition for permission to appeal requires dismissal\\nof this appeal. We are permitted to consider a direct appeal\\nfrom an order of the bankruptcy court if the bankruptcy\\njudge certifies the order for appeal and we “authorize[] the\\ndirect appeal.” 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(2)(A). The Federal Rules of\\nBankruptcy and Appellate Procedure jointly set forth the\\nprocedural steps to obtain authorization for a direct appeal.\\n As relevant here, Bankruptcy Rule 8006(g) mandates that\\n“[w]ithin 30 days after the [bankruptcy court’s] certification\\nbecomes effective … , a request for permission to take a\\n\\f4 No. 18-2564\\n\\ndirect appeal to the court of appeals must be filed with the\\ncircuit clerk.” Ignoring this rule short-circuits our approval\\nprocess, which is detailed in Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of\\nAppellate Procedure. Rule 5 states that “[t]o request permis-\\nsion to appeal … , a party must file a petition for permission\\nto appeal.” FED. R. APP. P. 5(a)(1). Rule 5(b)(1) specifies the\\nrequired contents of the petition, which include a statement\\nof “the reasons why the appeal should be allowed and is\\nauthorized by a statute or rule.” Rule 5(b)(2) provides a ten-\\nday window for other parties to oppose the petition or file a\\ncross-petition. Whether opposed or not, under Rule 5(b)(3)\\nthe petition for leave to appeal is decided “without oral\\nargument unless the court of appeals orders otherwise.”\\n Because Rule 8006(g) is a “time limitation … found in a\\nprocedural rule, not a statute, it is properly classified as a\\nnonjurisdictional claim-processing rule.” Nutraceutical Corp.\\nv. Lambert, 139 S. Ct. 710, 714 (2019). The question here is\\nwhether Rule 8006(g) is a “mandatory” claim-processing\\nrule, which “[i]f properly invoked … must be enforced.”\\nHamer, 138 S. Ct. at 7.\\n The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Nutraceutical\\nCorp. is instructive on this point. There the Supreme Court\\nconsidered Rule 23(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Proce-\\ndure, which permits an interlocutory appeal of a class-\\ncertification order if the appellant files a petition for permis-\\nsion to appeal “within 14 days after the order is entered.”\\nThe Court held that Rule 23(f) is a mandatory claim-\\nprocessing rule, noting that “the Federal Rules of Appellate\\nProcedure single out Civil Rule 23(f) for inflexible treat-\\nment,” Nutraceutical, 139 S. Ct. at 715, because Rule 26(b)(1)\\n\\fNo. 18-2564 5\\n\\nbars courts from “extend[ing] the time to file … a petition for\\npermission to appeal,” FED. R. APP. P. 26(b).\\n That reasoning applies with equal force here. Like\\nRule 23(f), Rule 8006(g) speaks in mandatory terms. See FED.\\nR. BANKR. P. 8006(g) (petition “must be filed” before the\\ndeadline). And like Rule 23(f), Rule 8006(g) requires a peti-\\ntion for permission to appeal, so Rule 26(b)(1) “singles [it]\\nout … for inflexible treatment.” Nutraceutical Corp., 139 S. Ct.\\nat 715. Rule 8006(g) is thus a mandatory claim-processing\\nrule. Because Kreisler properly invoked the rule, it “must be\\nenforced.” Hamer, 138 S. Ct. at 17.\\n In response the Wades rely on the lead opinion in In re\\nTurner, 574 F.3d 349 (7th Cir. 2009), and our decision in\\nMarshall v. Blake, 885 F.3d 1065 (7th Cir. 2018). In both cases\\nthe appellants obtained certification from the bankruptcy\\ncourt for a direct appeal but failed to file a petition for\\npermission to appeal as required by the Bankruptcy and\\nAppellate Rules. In both cases we declined to dismiss the\\nappeal, but the decisions rested on slightly different\\ngrounds.\\n The lead opinion in Turner, representing only the author’s\\nviews, concluded that the record transmitted from the\\nbankruptcy court contained the information that a petition\\nfor leave to appeal would have provided. See 574 F.3d at 352\\n(Posner, J.). Invoking the Supreme Court’s decision in Torres\\nv. Oakland Scavenger Co., the lead opinion concluded that the\\nrecord sent by the bankruptcy court brought\\n the case within the principle that “if a litigant\\n files papers in a fashion that is technically at\\n variance with the letter of a procedural rule, a\\n\\f6 No. 18-2564\\n\\n court may nonetheless find that the litigant has\\n complied with the rule if the litigant’s action is\\n the functional equivalent of what the rule re-\\n quires.”\\nId. (quoting Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U.S. 312, 316–\\n17 (1988)). In the lead opinion’s view, dismissal was unwar-\\nranted because treating the bankruptcy-court record as the\\n“functional equivalent” of a petition would not prejudice the\\nappellee. Id.; see also id. at 356 (Van Bokkelen, J., concurring\\nin the judgment).\\n In Marshall we dropped any reliance on functional equiv-\\nalence and instead emphasized Turner’s discussion of harm-\\nlessness. See 885 F.3d at 1073 (“[W]e have excused the failure\\nto file a Rule 5 petition if the party filed a timely notice of\\nappeal and ‘no one is harmed by the failure.’” (quoting\\nTurner, 574 F.3d at 354)). Marshall found that the failure to\\ncomply with Rule 8006(g) was harmless in that case.\\n Turner was decided before Hamer clarified the effect of\\nmandatory claim-processing rules. The lead opinion pre-\\nsumed that as long as a rule is not jurisdictional, courts\\ncould create equitable exceptions. See 574 F.3d at 354 (“[T]he\\nfailure to comply with a rule that is not jurisdictional … is\\nnot fatal if no one is harmed by the failure … .”). And\\nMarshall postdates Hamer but does not mention the case.\\nThere the litigants framed the Rule 8006(g) objection in\\njurisdictional terms, and our opinion treated the issue ac-\\ncordingly, concluding that “we have jurisdiction to hear the\\ndirect appeal” after rejecting the appellee’s Rule 8006(g)\\nobjection. Marshall, 885 F.3d at 1074.\\n\\fNo. 18-2564 7\\n\\n Marshall and Turner are irreconcilable with the Supreme\\nCourt’s recent decisions on the effect of noncompliance with\\nmandatory claim-processing rules. Marshall’s harmless-error\\nanalysis cannot coexist with the Court’s decision in Manrique\\nv. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1266, 1274 (2017), which held that\\n“mandatory claim-processing rules … are not subject to\\nharmless-error analysis.” More broadly, the Court’s recent\\ndecisions in this area have consistently compelled enforce-\\nment of mandatory claim-processing rules. See, e.g.,\\nNutraceutical Corp., 139 S. Ct. at 714 (stating that mandatory\\nclaim-processing rules are “unalterable”); Hamer, 138 S. Ct.\\nat 17 (stating that mandatory claim-processing rules “must\\nbe enforced”); Manrique, 137 S. Ct. at 1272 (“[T]he court’s\\nduty to dismiss the appeal was mandatory.”) (quotation\\nmarks omitted). Adopting a harmless-error exception, as\\nMarshall did, necessarily alters an “unalterable” claim-\\nprocessing rule.\\n The approach of Turner’s lead opinion is also unsustaina-\\nble in light of the Court’s recent cases. The Wades note that\\nTorres remains on the books. True, but we’re not persuaded\\nthat we may accept the bankruptcy court’s certification order\\nas the functional equivalent of a petition for permission to\\nappeal.\\n To start, it’s unclear if Torres itself ever extended that far.\\nSee 487 U.S. at 315–16 (“Permitting imperfect but substantial\\ncompliance with a technical requirement is not the same as\\nwaiving the requirement altogether … .”). Regardless, the\\nCourt has now clearly rejected the reasoning of the lead\\nopinion in Turner. In Manrique a criminal defendant failed to\\nfile a second notice of appeal after the lower court issued an\\namended judgment, as Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Crimi-\\n\\f8 No. 18-2564\\n\\nnal Procedure requires. The dissent reasoned that “the\\nclerk’s transmission of the amended judgment to the Court\\nof Appeals [was] an adequate substitute for a second notice\\nof appeal.” Manrique, 137 S. Ct. at 1275 (Ginsburg, J., dissent-\\ning). But the Court didn’t agree. It treated Rule 4 as a manda-\\ntory claim-processing rule and held that the court of appeals\\n“may not overlook the failure to file a notice of appeal at\\nall.” Id. at 1274 (majority opinion). Because that omission ran\\nafoul of Rule 4, the appeal had to be dismissed. Id.\\n The same result is required here. We cannot overlook the\\nWades’ failure to file a petition for permission to appeal.\\nBecause Kreisler properly objected to the violation of\\nRule 8006(g), our “duty to dismiss the appeal [is] mandato-\\nry.“ Id. at 1272 (quotation marks omitted). Based on the clear\\nconflict with Nutraceutical Corp., Hamer, and Manrique, we\\noverrule Turner and Marshall to the extent that they ap-\\nproved exceptions to compliance with Bankruptcy\\nRule 8006(g) and Rule 5(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appel-\\nlate Procedure—whether based on the functional-\\nequivalence doctrine, the harmless-error doctrine, or both. 1\\nThe Wades must pursue their appeal through the ordinary\\nprocess, which starts with the district court.\\n APPEAL DISMISSED.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n1 Because this opinion overrules circuit precedent, we circulated it to all\\njudges in active service. See 7TH CIR. R. 40(e). No judge favored rehearing\\nen banc.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4407149/\", \"author_raw\": \"Diane S. Sykes\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"KANNE"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"SYKES"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"HAMILTON"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"KANNE\": \", Circuit\", \"SYKES\": \", Circuit\", \"HAMILTON\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4629896/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":6,"string":"6"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Harold Wade v. Kreisler Law, P.C.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-06-14\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-2564\nIN RE:\n HAROLD WADE and LORRAINE WADE,\n Debtors-Appellants.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 15-BK-01035 — LaShonda A. Hunt, Bankruptcy Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED FEBRUARY 6, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 14, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before KANNE, SYKES, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.\n SYKES, Circuit Judge. Debtors Harold and Lorraine Wade\nmoved for sanctions against Kreisler Law, P.C., alleging that\nthe law firm violated the automatic stay arising from their\nbankruptcy petition by filing a lien against Lorraine’s home.\nThe couple had voluntarily dismissed a prior bankruptcy\npetition just a few months earlier, so the bankruptcy judge\ndenied their motion based on 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3), which\nlifts the automatic stay after 30 days in the case of a succes-\nsive petition. But the bankruptcy courts are divided over the\nproper interpretation of § 362(c)(3), so the judge certified her\n\f2 No. 18-2564\n\norder for direct appeal to this court under 28 U.S.C.\n§ 158(d)(2)(A). A timely notice of appeal followed.\n But the Wades never filed a petition for permission to\nappeal as required by Rule 8006(g) of the Federal Rules of\nBankruptcy Procedure. Kreisler moved to dismiss the appeal\nbased on this omission. We provisionally accepted the\nappeal and directed the parties to address the effect of the\nprocedural violation in their merits briefs.\n We now dismiss the appeal. Rule 8006(g) is a mandatory\nclaim-processing rule, and if properly invoked, it must be\nenforced. See Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of Chi.,\n138 S. Ct. 13, 17 (2017). Because Kreisler properly objected,\nthe appeal must be dismissed.\n I. Background\n The Wades filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition in\nJanuary 2015, which automatically stayed any collection\nactions against their property. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). But the\npetition was successive—they had voluntarily dismissed a\ndifferent petition two months earlier—and § 362(c)(3) states\nthat if a prior petition “was pending within the preceding\n1-year period but was dismissed,” the automatic stay “shall\nterminate with respect to the debtor on the 30th day after the\nfiling of the later case.”\n Just how much of the stay was lifted became relevant af-\nter the Wades discovered that Kreisler recorded a lien\nagainst Lorraine’s home in April 2015. Because their bank-\nruptcy case was active at that time, the Wades moved in the\nbankruptcy court to sanction Kreisler for violating the stay.\n The parties disagreed about the meaning of § 362(c)(3).\nKreisler contended that it lifts the entire stay. The Wades\n\fNo. 18-2564 3\n\nargued that the phrase “with respect to the debtor” limits\nthe statute’s effect so that it lifts the stay only for non-estate\nproperty. In their view the stay still prevented Kreisler from\nrecording the lien because Lorraine’s house was estate\nproperty.\n The bankruptcy judge denied the Wades’ motion, con-\ncluding that the entire stay lifted in February 2015, which\nvalidated Kreisler’s April 2015 lien. The Wades appealed to\nthe district court. But they also asked the bankruptcy judge\nto certify her order for direct appeal to this court under\n§ 158(d)(2)(A). The judge granted that request and issued a\ncertification order. The Wades then filed a notice of appeal,\nbut they never filed a petition for permission to appeal as\nrequired by Rule 8006(g) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy\nProcedure. Kreisler moved to dismiss based on this proce-\ndural oversight. We provisionally accepted the appeal but\ninstructed the parties to brief the dismissal motion with the\nmerits.\n II. Discussion\n We begin (and end) with the question whether the failure\nto file a petition for permission to appeal requires dismissal\nof this appeal. We are permitted to consider a direct appeal\nfrom an order of the bankruptcy court if the bankruptcy\njudge certifies the order for appeal and we “authorize[] the\ndirect appeal.” 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(2)(A). The Federal Rules of\nBankruptcy and Appellate Procedure jointly set forth the\nprocedural steps to obtain authorization for a direct appeal.\n As relevant here, Bankruptcy Rule 8006(g) mandates that\n“[w]ithin 30 days after the [bankruptcy court’s] certification\nbecomes effective … , a request for permission to take a\n\f4 No. 18-2564\n\ndirect appeal to the court of appeals must be filed with the\ncircuit clerk.” Ignoring this rule short-circuits our approval\nprocess, which is detailed in Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of\nAppellate Procedure. Rule 5 states that “[t]o request permis-\nsion to appeal … , a party must file a petition for permission\nto appeal.” FED. R. APP. P. 5(a)(1). Rule 5(b)(1) specifies the\nrequired contents of the petition, which include a statement\nof “the reasons why the appeal should be allowed and is\nauthorized by a statute or rule.” Rule 5(b)(2) provides a ten-\nday window for other parties to oppose the petition or file a\ncross-petition. Whether opposed or not, under Rule 5(b)(3)\nthe petition for leave to appeal is decided “without oral\nargument unless the court of appeals orders otherwise.”\n Because Rule 8006(g) is a “time limitation … found in a\nprocedural rule, not a statute, it is properly classified as a\nnonjurisdictional claim-processing rule.” Nutraceutical Corp.\nv. Lambert, 139 S. Ct. 710, 714 (2019). The question here is\nwhether Rule 8006(g) is a “mandatory” claim-processing\nrule, which “[i]f properly invoked … must be enforced.”\nHamer, 138 S. Ct. at 7.\n The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Nutraceutical\nCorp. is instructive on this point. There the Supreme Court\nconsidered Rule 23(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Proce-\ndure, which permits an interlocutory appeal of a class-\ncertification order if the appellant files a petition for permis-\nsion to appeal “within 14 days after the order is entered.”\nThe Court held that Rule 23(f) is a mandatory claim-\nprocessing rule, noting that “the Federal Rules of Appellate\nProcedure single out Civil Rule 23(f) for inflexible treat-\nment,” Nutraceutical, 139 S. Ct. at 715, because Rule 26(b)(1)\n\fNo. 18-2564 5\n\nbars courts from “extend[ing] the time to file … a petition for\npermission to appeal,” FED. R. APP. P. 26(b).\n That reasoning applies with equal force here. Like\nRule 23(f), Rule 8006(g) speaks in mandatory terms. See FED.\nR. BANKR. P. 8006(g) (petition “must be filed” before the\ndeadline). And like Rule 23(f), Rule 8006(g) requires a peti-\ntion for permission to appeal, so Rule 26(b)(1) “singles [it]\nout … for inflexible treatment.” Nutraceutical Corp., 139 S. Ct.\nat 715. Rule 8006(g) is thus a mandatory claim-processing\nrule. Because Kreisler properly invoked the rule, it “must be\nenforced.” Hamer, 138 S. Ct. at 17.\n In response the Wades rely on the lead opinion in In re\nTurner, 574 F.3d 349 (7th Cir. 2009), and our decision in\nMarshall v. Blake, 885 F.3d 1065 (7th Cir. 2018). In both cases\nthe appellants obtained certification from the bankruptcy\ncourt for a direct appeal but failed to file a petition for\npermission to appeal as required by the Bankruptcy and\nAppellate Rules. In both cases we declined to dismiss the\nappeal, but the decisions rested on slightly different\ngrounds.\n The lead opinion in Turner, representing only the author’s\nviews, concluded that the record transmitted from the\nbankruptcy court contained the information that a petition\nfor leave to appeal would have provided. See 574 F.3d at 352\n(Posner, J.). Invoking the Supreme Court’s decision in Torres\nv. Oakland Scavenger Co., the lead opinion concluded that the\nrecord sent by the bankruptcy court brought\n the case within the principle that “if a litigant\n files papers in a fashion that is technically at\n variance with the letter of a procedural rule, a\n\f6 No. 18-2564\n\n court may nonetheless find that the litigant has\n complied with the rule if the litigant’s action is\n the functional equivalent of what the rule re-\n quires.”\nId. (quoting Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U.S. 312, 316–\n17 (1988)). In the lead opinion’s view, dismissal was unwar-\nranted because treating the bankruptcy-court record as the\n“functional equivalent” of a petition would not prejudice the\nappellee. Id.; see also id. at 356 (Van Bokkelen, J., concurring\nin the judgment).\n In Marshall we dropped any reliance on functional equiv-\nalence and instead emphasized Turner’s discussion of harm-\nlessness. See 885 F.3d at 1073 (“[W]e have excused the failure\nto file a Rule 5 petition if the party filed a timely notice of\nappeal and ‘no one is harmed by the failure.’” (quoting\nTurner, 574 F.3d at 354)). Marshall found that the failure to\ncomply with Rule 8006(g) was harmless in that case.\n Turner was decided before Hamer clarified the effect of\nmandatory claim-processing rules. The lead opinion pre-\nsumed that as long as a rule is not jurisdictional, courts\ncould create equitable exceptions. See 574 F.3d at 354 (“[T]he\nfailure to comply with a rule that is not jurisdictional … is\nnot fatal if no one is harmed by the failure … .”). And\nMarshall postdates Hamer but does not mention the case.\nThere the litigants framed the Rule 8006(g) objection in\njurisdictional terms, and our opinion treated the issue ac-\ncordingly, concluding that “we have jurisdiction to hear the\ndirect appeal” after rejecting the appellee’s Rule 8006(g)\nobjection. Marshall, 885 F.3d at 1074.\n\fNo. 18-2564 7\n\n Marshall and Turner are irreconcilable with the Supreme\nCourt’s recent decisions on the effect of noncompliance with\nmandatory claim-processing rules. Marshall’s harmless-error\nanalysis cannot coexist with the Court’s decision in Manrique\nv. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1266, 1274 (2017), which held that\n“mandatory claim-processing rules … are not subject to\nharmless-error analysis.” More broadly, the Court’s recent\ndecisions in this area have consistently compelled enforce-\nment of mandatory claim-processing rules. See, e.g.,\nNutraceutical Corp., 139 S. Ct. at 714 (stating that mandatory\nclaim-processing rules are “unalterable”); Hamer, 138 S. Ct.\nat 17 (stating that mandatory claim-processing rules “must\nbe enforced”); Manrique, 137 S. Ct. at 1272 (“[T]he court’s\nduty to dismiss the appeal was mandatory.”) (quotation\nmarks omitted). Adopting a harmless-error exception, as\nMarshall did, necessarily alters an “unalterable” claim-\nprocessing rule.\n The approach of Turner’s lead opinion is also unsustaina-\nble in light of the Court’s recent cases. The Wades note that\nTorres remains on the books. True, but we’re not persuaded\nthat we may accept the bankruptcy court’s certification order\nas the functional equivalent of a petition for permission to\nappeal.\n To start, it’s unclear if Torres itself ever extended that far.\nSee 487 U.S. at 315–16 (“Permitting imperfect but substantial\ncompliance with a technical requirement is not the same as\nwaiving the requirement altogether … .”). Regardless, the\nCourt has now clearly rejected the reasoning of the lead\nopinion in Turner. In Manrique a criminal defendant failed to\nfile a second notice of appeal after the lower court issued an\namended judgment, as Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Crimi-\n\f8 No. 18-2564\n\nnal Procedure requires. The dissent reasoned that “the\nclerk’s transmission of the amended judgment to the Court\nof Appeals [was] an adequate substitute for a second notice\nof appeal.” Manrique, 137 S. Ct. at 1275 (Ginsburg, J., dissent-\ning). But the Court didn’t agree. It treated Rule 4 as a manda-\ntory claim-processing rule and held that the court of appeals\n“may not overlook the failure to file a notice of appeal at\nall.” Id. at 1274 (majority opinion). Because that omission ran\nafoul of Rule 4, the appeal had to be dismissed. Id.\n The same result is required here. We cannot overlook the\nWades’ failure to file a petition for permission to appeal.\nBecause Kreisler properly objected to the violation of\nRule 8006(g), our “duty to dismiss the appeal [is] mandato-\nry.“ Id. at 1272 (quotation marks omitted). Based on the clear\nconflict with Nutraceutical Corp., Hamer, and Manrique, we\noverrule Turner and Marshall to the extent that they ap-\nproved exceptions to compliance with Bankruptcy\nRule 8006(g) and Rule 5(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appel-\nlate Procedure—whether based on the functional-\nequivalence doctrine, the harmless-error doctrine, or both. 1\nThe Wades must pursue their appeal through the ordinary\nprocess, which starts with the district court.\n APPEAL DISMISSED.\n\n\n\n\n1 Because this opinion overrules circuit precedent, we circulated it to all\njudges in active service. See 7TH CIR. R. 40(e). No judge favored rehearing\nen banc.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Harold Wade v. Kreisler Law, P.C.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-06-14\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-2564\\nIN RE:\\n HAROLD WADE and LORRAINE WADE,\\n Debtors-Appellants.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 15-BK-01035 — LaShonda A. Hunt, Bankruptcy Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED FEBRUARY 6, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 14, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before KANNE, SYKES, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.\\n SYKES, Circuit Judge. Debtors Harold and Lorraine Wade\\nmoved for sanctions against Kreisler Law, P.C., alleging that\\nthe law firm violated the automatic stay arising from their\\nbankruptcy petition by filing a lien against Lorraine’s home.\\nThe couple had voluntarily dismissed a prior bankruptcy\\npetition just a few months earlier, so the bankruptcy judge\\ndenied their motion based on 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3), which\\nlifts the automatic stay after 30 days in the case of a succes-\\nsive petition. But the bankruptcy courts are divided over the\\nproper interpretation of § 362(c)(3), so the judge certified her\\n\\f2 No. 18-2564\\n\\norder for direct appeal to this court under 28 U.S.C.\\n§ 158(d)(2)(A). A timely notice of appeal followed.\\n But the Wades never filed a petition for permission to\\nappeal as required by Rule 8006(g) of the Federal Rules of\\nBankruptcy Procedure. Kreisler moved to dismiss the appeal\\nbased on this omission. We provisionally accepted the\\nappeal and directed the parties to address the effect of the\\nprocedural violation in their merits briefs.\\n We now dismiss the appeal. Rule 8006(g) is a mandatory\\nclaim-processing rule, and if properly invoked, it must be\\nenforced. See Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of Chi.,\\n138 S. Ct. 13, 17 (2017). Because Kreisler properly objected,\\nthe appeal must be dismissed.\\n I. Background\\n The Wades filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition in\\nJanuary 2015, which automatically stayed any collection\\nactions against their property. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). But the\\npetition was successive—they had voluntarily dismissed a\\ndifferent petition two months earlier—and § 362(c)(3) states\\nthat if a prior petition “was pending within the preceding\\n1-year period but was dismissed,” the automatic stay “shall\\nterminate with respect to the debtor on the 30th day after the\\nfiling of the later case.”\\n Just how much of the stay was lifted became relevant af-\\nter the Wades discovered that Kreisler recorded a lien\\nagainst Lorraine’s home in April 2015. Because their bank-\\nruptcy case was active at that time, the Wades moved in the\\nbankruptcy court to sanction Kreisler for violating the stay.\\n The parties disagreed about the meaning of § 362(c)(3).\\nKreisler contended that it lifts the entire stay. The Wades\\n\\fNo. 18-2564 3\\n\\nargued that the phrase “with respect to the debtor” limits\\nthe statute’s effect so that it lifts the stay only for non-estate\\nproperty. In their view the stay still prevented Kreisler from\\nrecording the lien because Lorraine’s house was estate\\nproperty.\\n The bankruptcy judge denied the Wades’ motion, con-\\ncluding that the entire stay lifted in February 2015, which\\nvalidated Kreisler’s April 2015 lien. The Wades appealed to\\nthe district court. But they also asked the bankruptcy judge\\nto certify her order for direct appeal to this court under\\n§ 158(d)(2)(A). The judge granted that request and issued a\\ncertification order. The Wades then filed a notice of appeal,\\nbut they never filed a petition for permission to appeal as\\nrequired by Rule 8006(g) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy\\nProcedure. Kreisler moved to dismiss based on this proce-\\ndural oversight. We provisionally accepted the appeal but\\ninstructed the parties to brief the dismissal motion with the\\nmerits.\\n II. Discussion\\n We begin (and end) with the question whether the failure\\nto file a petition for permission to appeal requires dismissal\\nof this appeal. We are permitted to consider a direct appeal\\nfrom an order of the bankruptcy court if the bankruptcy\\njudge certifies the order for appeal and we “authorize[] the\\ndirect appeal.” 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(2)(A). The Federal Rules of\\nBankruptcy and Appellate Procedure jointly set forth the\\nprocedural steps to obtain authorization for a direct appeal.\\n As relevant here, Bankruptcy Rule 8006(g) mandates that\\n“[w]ithin 30 days after the [bankruptcy court’s] certification\\nbecomes effective … , a request for permission to take a\\n\\f4 No. 18-2564\\n\\ndirect appeal to the court of appeals must be filed with the\\ncircuit clerk.” Ignoring this rule short-circuits our approval\\nprocess, which is detailed in Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of\\nAppellate Procedure. Rule 5 states that “[t]o request permis-\\nsion to appeal … , a party must file a petition for permission\\nto appeal.” FED. R. APP. P. 5(a)(1). Rule 5(b)(1) specifies the\\nrequired contents of the petition, which include a statement\\nof “the reasons why the appeal should be allowed and is\\nauthorized by a statute or rule.” Rule 5(b)(2) provides a ten-\\nday window for other parties to oppose the petition or file a\\ncross-petition. Whether opposed or not, under Rule 5(b)(3)\\nthe petition for leave to appeal is decided “without oral\\nargument unless the court of appeals orders otherwise.”\\n Because Rule 8006(g) is a “time limitation … found in a\\nprocedural rule, not a statute, it is properly classified as a\\nnonjurisdictional claim-processing rule.” Nutraceutical Corp.\\nv. Lambert, 139 S. Ct. 710, 714 (2019). The question here is\\nwhether Rule 8006(g) is a “mandatory” claim-processing\\nrule, which “[i]f properly invoked … must be enforced.”\\nHamer, 138 S. Ct. at 7.\\n The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Nutraceutical\\nCorp. is instructive on this point. There the Supreme Court\\nconsidered Rule 23(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Proce-\\ndure, which permits an interlocutory appeal of a class-\\ncertification order if the appellant files a petition for permis-\\nsion to appeal “within 14 days after the order is entered.”\\nThe Court held that Rule 23(f) is a mandatory claim-\\nprocessing rule, noting that “the Federal Rules of Appellate\\nProcedure single out Civil Rule 23(f) for inflexible treat-\\nment,” Nutraceutical, 139 S. Ct. at 715, because Rule 26(b)(1)\\n\\fNo. 18-2564 5\\n\\nbars courts from “extend[ing] the time to file … a petition for\\npermission to appeal,” FED. R. APP. P. 26(b).\\n That reasoning applies with equal force here. Like\\nRule 23(f), Rule 8006(g) speaks in mandatory terms. See FED.\\nR. BANKR. P. 8006(g) (petition “must be filed” before the\\ndeadline). And like Rule 23(f), Rule 8006(g) requires a peti-\\ntion for permission to appeal, so Rule 26(b)(1) “singles [it]\\nout … for inflexible treatment.” Nutraceutical Corp., 139 S. Ct.\\nat 715. Rule 8006(g) is thus a mandatory claim-processing\\nrule. Because Kreisler properly invoked the rule, it “must be\\nenforced.” Hamer, 138 S. Ct. at 17.\\n In response the Wades rely on the lead opinion in In re\\nTurner, 574 F.3d 349 (7th Cir. 2009), and our decision in\\nMarshall v. Blake, 885 F.3d 1065 (7th Cir. 2018). In both cases\\nthe appellants obtained certification from the bankruptcy\\ncourt for a direct appeal but failed to file a petition for\\npermission to appeal as required by the Bankruptcy and\\nAppellate Rules. In both cases we declined to dismiss the\\nappeal, but the decisions rested on slightly different\\ngrounds.\\n The lead opinion in Turner, representing only the author’s\\nviews, concluded that the record transmitted from the\\nbankruptcy court contained the information that a petition\\nfor leave to appeal would have provided. See 574 F.3d at 352\\n(Posner, J.). Invoking the Supreme Court’s decision in Torres\\nv. Oakland Scavenger Co., the lead opinion concluded that the\\nrecord sent by the bankruptcy court brought\\n the case within the principle that “if a litigant\\n files papers in a fashion that is technically at\\n variance with the letter of a procedural rule, a\\n\\f6 No. 18-2564\\n\\n court may nonetheless find that the litigant has\\n complied with the rule if the litigant’s action is\\n the functional equivalent of what the rule re-\\n quires.”\\nId. (quoting Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U.S. 312, 316–\\n17 (1988)). In the lead opinion’s view, dismissal was unwar-\\nranted because treating the bankruptcy-court record as the\\n“functional equivalent” of a petition would not prejudice the\\nappellee. Id.; see also id. at 356 (Van Bokkelen, J., concurring\\nin the judgment).\\n In Marshall we dropped any reliance on functional equiv-\\nalence and instead emphasized Turner’s discussion of harm-\\nlessness. See 885 F.3d at 1073 (“[W]e have excused the failure\\nto file a Rule 5 petition if the party filed a timely notice of\\nappeal and ‘no one is harmed by the failure.’” (quoting\\nTurner, 574 F.3d at 354)). Marshall found that the failure to\\ncomply with Rule 8006(g) was harmless in that case.\\n Turner was decided before Hamer clarified the effect of\\nmandatory claim-processing rules. The lead opinion pre-\\nsumed that as long as a rule is not jurisdictional, courts\\ncould create equitable exceptions. See 574 F.3d at 354 (“[T]he\\nfailure to comply with a rule that is not jurisdictional … is\\nnot fatal if no one is harmed by the failure … .”). And\\nMarshall postdates Hamer but does not mention the case.\\nThere the litigants framed the Rule 8006(g) objection in\\njurisdictional terms, and our opinion treated the issue ac-\\ncordingly, concluding that “we have jurisdiction to hear the\\ndirect appeal” after rejecting the appellee’s Rule 8006(g)\\nobjection. Marshall, 885 F.3d at 1074.\\n\\fNo. 18-2564 7\\n\\n Marshall and Turner are irreconcilable with the Supreme\\nCourt’s recent decisions on the effect of noncompliance with\\nmandatory claim-processing rules. Marshall’s harmless-error\\nanalysis cannot coexist with the Court’s decision in Manrique\\nv. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1266, 1274 (2017), which held that\\n“mandatory claim-processing rules … are not subject to\\nharmless-error analysis.” More broadly, the Court’s recent\\ndecisions in this area have consistently compelled enforce-\\nment of mandatory claim-processing rules. See, e.g.,\\nNutraceutical Corp., 139 S. Ct. at 714 (stating that mandatory\\nclaim-processing rules are “unalterable”); Hamer, 138 S. Ct.\\nat 17 (stating that mandatory claim-processing rules “must\\nbe enforced”); Manrique, 137 S. Ct. at 1272 (“[T]he court’s\\nduty to dismiss the appeal was mandatory.”) (quotation\\nmarks omitted). Adopting a harmless-error exception, as\\nMarshall did, necessarily alters an “unalterable” claim-\\nprocessing rule.\\n The approach of Turner’s lead opinion is also unsustaina-\\nble in light of the Court’s recent cases. The Wades note that\\nTorres remains on the books. True, but we’re not persuaded\\nthat we may accept the bankruptcy court’s certification order\\nas the functional equivalent of a petition for permission to\\nappeal.\\n To start, it’s unclear if Torres itself ever extended that far.\\nSee 487 U.S. at 315–16 (“Permitting imperfect but substantial\\ncompliance with a technical requirement is not the same as\\nwaiving the requirement altogether … .”). Regardless, the\\nCourt has now clearly rejected the reasoning of the lead\\nopinion in Turner. In Manrique a criminal defendant failed to\\nfile a second notice of appeal after the lower court issued an\\namended judgment, as Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Crimi-\\n\\f8 No. 18-2564\\n\\nnal Procedure requires. The dissent reasoned that “the\\nclerk’s transmission of the amended judgment to the Court\\nof Appeals [was] an adequate substitute for a second notice\\nof appeal.” Manrique, 137 S. Ct. at 1275 (Ginsburg, J., dissent-\\ning). But the Court didn’t agree. It treated Rule 4 as a manda-\\ntory claim-processing rule and held that the court of appeals\\n“may not overlook the failure to file a notice of appeal at\\nall.” Id. at 1274 (majority opinion). Because that omission ran\\nafoul of Rule 4, the appeal had to be dismissed. Id.\\n The same result is required here. We cannot overlook the\\nWades’ failure to file a petition for permission to appeal.\\nBecause Kreisler properly objected to the violation of\\nRule 8006(g), our “duty to dismiss the appeal [is] mandato-\\nry.“ Id. at 1272 (quotation marks omitted). Based on the clear\\nconflict with Nutraceutical Corp., Hamer, and Manrique, we\\noverrule Turner and Marshall to the extent that they ap-\\nproved exceptions to compliance with Bankruptcy\\nRule 8006(g) and Rule 5(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appel-\\nlate Procedure—whether based on the functional-\\nequivalence doctrine, the harmless-error doctrine, or both. 1\\nThe Wades must pursue their appeal through the ordinary\\nprocess, which starts with the district court.\\n APPEAL DISMISSED.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n1 Because this opinion overrules circuit precedent, we circulated it to all\\njudges in active service. See 7TH CIR. R. 40(e). No judge favored rehearing\\nen banc.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2585,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4629996,"string":"4,629,996"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Harold Wade v. Kreisler Law, P.C."},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-06-14"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-2564"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before KANNE, SYKES, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Diane S. Sykes\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-2564\\nIN RE:\\n HAROLD WADE and LORRAINE WADE,\\n Debtors-Appellants.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 15-BK-01035 — LaShonda A. Hunt, Bankruptcy Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED FEBRUARY 6, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 14, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before KANNE, SYKES, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.\\n SYKES, Circuit Judge. Debtors Harold and Lorraine Wade\\nmoved for sanctions against Kreisler Law, P.C., alleging that\\nthe law firm violated the automatic stay arising from their\\nbankruptcy petition by filing a lien against Lorraine’s home.\\nThe couple had voluntarily dismissed a prior bankruptcy\\npetition just a few months earlier, so the bankruptcy judge\\ndenied their motion based on 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3), which\\nlifts the automatic stay after 30 days in the case of a succes-\\nsive petition. But the bankruptcy courts are divided over the\\nproper interpretation of § 362(c)(3), so the judge certified her\\n\\f2 No. 18-2564\\n\\norder for direct appeal to this court under 28 U.S.C.\\n§ 158(d)(2)(A). A timely notice of appeal followed.\\n But the Wades never filed a petition for permission to\\nappeal as required by Rule 8006(g) of the Federal Rules of\\nBankruptcy Procedure. Kreisler moved to dismiss the appeal\\nbased on this omission. We provisionally accepted the\\nappeal and directed the parties to address the effect of the\\nprocedural violation in their merits briefs.\\n We now dismiss the appeal. Rule 8006(g) is a mandatory\\nclaim-processing rule, and if properly invoked, it must be\\nenforced. See Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of Chi.,\\n138 S. Ct. 13, 17 (2017). Because Kreisler properly objected,\\nthe appeal must be dismissed.\\n I. Background\\n The Wades filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition in\\nJanuary 2015, which automatically stayed any collection\\nactions against their property. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). But the\\npetition was successive—they had voluntarily dismissed a\\ndifferent petition two months earlier—and § 362(c)(3) states\\nthat if a prior petition “was pending within the preceding\\n1-year period but was dismissed,” the automatic stay “shall\\nterminate with respect to the debtor on the 30th day after the\\nfiling of the later case.”\\n Just how much of the stay was lifted became relevant af-\\nter the Wades discovered that Kreisler recorded a lien\\nagainst Lorraine’s home in April 2015. Because their bank-\\nruptcy case was active at that time, the Wades moved in the\\nbankruptcy court to sanction Kreisler for violating the stay.\\n The parties disagreed about the meaning of § 362(c)(3).\\nKreisler contended that it lifts the entire stay. The Wades\\n\\fNo. 18-2564 3\\n\\nargued that the phrase “with respect to the debtor” limits\\nthe statute’s effect so that it lifts the stay only for non-estate\\nproperty. In their view the stay still prevented Kreisler from\\nrecording the lien because Lorraine’s house was estate\\nproperty.\\n The bankruptcy judge denied the Wades’ motion, con-\\ncluding that the entire stay lifted in February 2015, which\\nvalidated Kreisler’s April 2015 lien. The Wades appealed to\\nthe district court. But they also asked the bankruptcy judge\\nto certify her order for direct appeal to this court under\\n§ 158(d)(2)(A). The judge granted that request and issued a\\ncertification order. The Wades then filed a notice of appeal,\\nbut they never filed a petition for permission to appeal as\\nrequired by Rule 8006(g) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy\\nProcedure. Kreisler moved to dismiss based on this proce-\\ndural oversight. We provisionally accepted the appeal but\\ninstructed the parties to brief the dismissal motion with the\\nmerits.\\n II. Discussion\\n We begin (and end) with the question whether the failure\\nto file a petition for permission to appeal requires dismissal\\nof this appeal. We are permitted to consider a direct appeal\\nfrom an order of the bankruptcy court if the bankruptcy\\njudge certifies the order for appeal and we “authorize[] the\\ndirect appeal.” 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(2)(A). The Federal Rules of\\nBankruptcy and Appellate Procedure jointly set forth the\\nprocedural steps to obtain authorization for a direct appeal.\\n As relevant here, Bankruptcy Rule 8006(g) mandates that\\n“[w]ithin 30 days after the [bankruptcy court’s] certification\\nbecomes effective … , a request for permission to take a\\n\\f4 No. 18-2564\\n\\ndirect appeal to the court of appeals must be filed with the\\ncircuit clerk.” Ignoring this rule short-circuits our approval\\nprocess, which is detailed in Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of\\nAppellate Procedure. Rule 5 states that “[t]o request permis-\\nsion to appeal … , a party must file a petition for permission\\nto appeal.” FED. R. APP. P. 5(a)(1). Rule 5(b)(1) specifies the\\nrequired contents of the petition, which include a statement\\nof “the reasons why the appeal should be allowed and is\\nauthorized by a statute or rule.” Rule 5(b)(2) provides a ten-\\nday window for other parties to oppose the petition or file a\\ncross-petition. Whether opposed or not, under Rule 5(b)(3)\\nthe petition for leave to appeal is decided “without oral\\nargument unless the court of appeals orders otherwise.”\\n Because Rule 8006(g) is a “time limitation … found in a\\nprocedural rule, not a statute, it is properly classified as a\\nnonjurisdictional claim-processing rule.” Nutraceutical Corp.\\nv. Lambert, 139 S. Ct. 710, 714 (2019). The question here is\\nwhether Rule 8006(g) is a “mandatory” claim-processing\\nrule, which “[i]f properly invoked … must be enforced.”\\nHamer, 138 S. Ct. at 7.\\n The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Nutraceutical\\nCorp. is instructive on this point. There the Supreme Court\\nconsidered Rule 23(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Proce-\\ndure, which permits an interlocutory appeal of a class-\\ncertification order if the appellant files a petition for permis-\\nsion to appeal “within 14 days after the order is entered.”\\nThe Court held that Rule 23(f) is a mandatory claim-\\nprocessing rule, noting that “the Federal Rules of Appellate\\nProcedure single out Civil Rule 23(f) for inflexible treat-\\nment,” Nutraceutical, 139 S. Ct. at 715, because Rule 26(b)(1)\\n\\fNo. 18-2564 5\\n\\nbars courts from “extend[ing] the time to file … a petition for\\npermission to appeal,” FED. R. APP. P. 26(b).\\n That reasoning applies with equal force here. Like\\nRule 23(f), Rule 8006(g) speaks in mandatory terms. See FED.\\nR. BANKR. P. 8006(g) (petition “must be filed” before the\\ndeadline). And like Rule 23(f), Rule 8006(g) requires a peti-\\ntion for permission to appeal, so Rule 26(b)(1) “singles [it]\\nout … for inflexible treatment.” Nutraceutical Corp., 139 S. Ct.\\nat 715. Rule 8006(g) is thus a mandatory claim-processing\\nrule. Because Kreisler properly invoked the rule, it “must be\\nenforced.” Hamer, 138 S. Ct. at 17.\\n In response the Wades rely on the lead opinion in In re\\nTurner, 574 F.3d 349 (7th Cir. 2009), and our decision in\\nMarshall v. Blake, 885 F.3d 1065 (7th Cir. 2018). In both cases\\nthe appellants obtained certification from the bankruptcy\\ncourt for a direct appeal but failed to file a petition for\\npermission to appeal as required by the Bankruptcy and\\nAppellate Rules. In both cases we declined to dismiss the\\nappeal, but the decisions rested on slightly different\\ngrounds.\\n The lead opinion in Turner, representing only the author’s\\nviews, concluded that the record transmitted from the\\nbankruptcy court contained the information that a petition\\nfor leave to appeal would have provided. See 574 F.3d at 352\\n(Posner, J.). Invoking the Supreme Court’s decision in Torres\\nv. Oakland Scavenger Co., the lead opinion concluded that the\\nrecord sent by the bankruptcy court brought\\n the case within the principle that “if a litigant\\n files papers in a fashion that is technically at\\n variance with the letter of a procedural rule, a\\n\\f6 No. 18-2564\\n\\n court may nonetheless find that the litigant has\\n complied with the rule if the litigant’s action is\\n the functional equivalent of what the rule re-\\n quires.”\\nId. (quoting Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U.S. 312, 316–\\n17 (1988)). In the lead opinion’s view, dismissal was unwar-\\nranted because treating the bankruptcy-court record as the\\n“functional equivalent” of a petition would not prejudice the\\nappellee. Id.; see also id. at 356 (Van Bokkelen, J., concurring\\nin the judgment).\\n In Marshall we dropped any reliance on functional equiv-\\nalence and instead emphasized Turner’s discussion of harm-\\nlessness. See 885 F.3d at 1073 (“[W]e have excused the failure\\nto file a Rule 5 petition if the party filed a timely notice of\\nappeal and ‘no one is harmed by the failure.’” (quoting\\nTurner, 574 F.3d at 354)). Marshall found that the failure to\\ncomply with Rule 8006(g) was harmless in that case.\\n Turner was decided before Hamer clarified the effect of\\nmandatory claim-processing rules. The lead opinion pre-\\nsumed that as long as a rule is not jurisdictional, courts\\ncould create equitable exceptions. See 574 F.3d at 354 (“[T]he\\nfailure to comply with a rule that is not jurisdictional … is\\nnot fatal if no one is harmed by the failure … .”). And\\nMarshall postdates Hamer but does not mention the case.\\nThere the litigants framed the Rule 8006(g) objection in\\njurisdictional terms, and our opinion treated the issue ac-\\ncordingly, concluding that “we have jurisdiction to hear the\\ndirect appeal” after rejecting the appellee’s Rule 8006(g)\\nobjection. Marshall, 885 F.3d at 1074.\\n\\fNo. 18-2564 7\\n\\n Marshall and Turner are irreconcilable with the Supreme\\nCourt’s recent decisions on the effect of noncompliance with\\nmandatory claim-processing rules. Marshall’s harmless-error\\nanalysis cannot coexist with the Court’s decision in Manrique\\nv. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1266, 1274 (2017), which held that\\n“mandatory claim-processing rules … are not subject to\\nharmless-error analysis.” More broadly, the Court’s recent\\ndecisions in this area have consistently compelled enforce-\\nment of mandatory claim-processing rules. See, e.g.,\\nNutraceutical Corp., 139 S. Ct. at 714 (stating that mandatory\\nclaim-processing rules are “unalterable”); Hamer, 138 S. Ct.\\nat 17 (stating that mandatory claim-processing rules “must\\nbe enforced”); Manrique, 137 S. Ct. at 1272 (“[T]he court’s\\nduty to dismiss the appeal was mandatory.”) (quotation\\nmarks omitted). Adopting a harmless-error exception, as\\nMarshall did, necessarily alters an “unalterable” claim-\\nprocessing rule.\\n The approach of Turner’s lead opinion is also unsustaina-\\nble in light of the Court’s recent cases. The Wades note that\\nTorres remains on the books. True, but we’re not persuaded\\nthat we may accept the bankruptcy court’s certification order\\nas the functional equivalent of a petition for permission to\\nappeal.\\n To start, it’s unclear if Torres itself ever extended that far.\\nSee 487 U.S. at 315–16 (“Permitting imperfect but substantial\\ncompliance with a technical requirement is not the same as\\nwaiving the requirement altogether … .”). Regardless, the\\nCourt has now clearly rejected the reasoning of the lead\\nopinion in Turner. In Manrique a criminal defendant failed to\\nfile a second notice of appeal after the lower court issued an\\namended judgment, as Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Crimi-\\n\\f8 No. 18-2564\\n\\nnal Procedure requires. The dissent reasoned that “the\\nclerk’s transmission of the amended judgment to the Court\\nof Appeals [was] an adequate substitute for a second notice\\nof appeal.” Manrique, 137 S. Ct. at 1275 (Ginsburg, J., dissent-\\ning). But the Court didn’t agree. It treated Rule 4 as a manda-\\ntory claim-processing rule and held that the court of appeals\\n“may not overlook the failure to file a notice of appeal at\\nall.” Id. at 1274 (majority opinion). Because that omission ran\\nafoul of Rule 4, the appeal had to be dismissed. Id.\\n The same result is required here. We cannot overlook the\\nWades’ failure to file a petition for permission to appeal.\\nBecause Kreisler properly objected to the violation of\\nRule 8006(g), our “duty to dismiss the appeal [is] mandato-\\nry.“ Id. at 1272 (quotation marks omitted). Based on the clear\\nconflict with Nutraceutical Corp., Hamer, and Manrique, we\\noverrule Turner and Marshall to the extent that they ap-\\nproved exceptions to compliance with Bankruptcy\\nRule 8006(g) and Rule 5(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appel-\\nlate Procedure—whether based on the functional-\\nequivalence doctrine, the harmless-error doctrine, or both. 1\\nThe Wades must pursue their appeal through the ordinary\\nprocess, which starts with the district court.\\n APPEAL DISMISSED.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n1 Because this opinion overrules circuit precedent, we circulated it to all\\njudges in active service. See 7TH CIR. R. 40(e). No judge favored rehearing\\nen banc.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4407249/\", \"author_raw\": \"Diane S. Sykes\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"KANNE"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"SYKES"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"HAMILTON"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"KANNE\": \", Circuit\", \"SYKES\": \", Circuit\", \"HAMILTON\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4629996/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":6,"string":"6"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Harold Wade v. Kreisler Law, P.C.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-06-14\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-2564\nIN RE:\n HAROLD WADE and LORRAINE WADE,\n Debtors-Appellants.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 15-BK-01035 — LaShonda A. Hunt, Bankruptcy Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED FEBRUARY 6, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 14, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before KANNE, SYKES, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.\n SYKES, Circuit Judge. Debtors Harold and Lorraine Wade\nmoved for sanctions against Kreisler Law, P.C., alleging that\nthe law firm violated the automatic stay arising from their\nbankruptcy petition by filing a lien against Lorraine’s home.\nThe couple had voluntarily dismissed a prior bankruptcy\npetition just a few months earlier, so the bankruptcy judge\ndenied their motion based on 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3), which\nlifts the automatic stay after 30 days in the case of a succes-\nsive petition. But the bankruptcy courts are divided over the\nproper interpretation of § 362(c)(3), so the judge certified her\n\f2 No. 18-2564\n\norder for direct appeal to this court under 28 U.S.C.\n§ 158(d)(2)(A). A timely notice of appeal followed.\n But the Wades never filed a petition for permission to\nappeal as required by Rule 8006(g) of the Federal Rules of\nBankruptcy Procedure. Kreisler moved to dismiss the appeal\nbased on this omission. We provisionally accepted the\nappeal and directed the parties to address the effect of the\nprocedural violation in their merits briefs.\n We now dismiss the appeal. Rule 8006(g) is a mandatory\nclaim-processing rule, and if properly invoked, it must be\nenforced. See Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of Chi.,\n138 S. Ct. 13, 17 (2017). Because Kreisler properly objected,\nthe appeal must be dismissed.\n I. Background\n The Wades filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition in\nJanuary 2015, which automatically stayed any collection\nactions against their property. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). But the\npetition was successive—they had voluntarily dismissed a\ndifferent petition two months earlier—and § 362(c)(3) states\nthat if a prior petition “was pending within the preceding\n1-year period but was dismissed,” the automatic stay “shall\nterminate with respect to the debtor on the 30th day after the\nfiling of the later case.”\n Just how much of the stay was lifted became relevant af-\nter the Wades discovered that Kreisler recorded a lien\nagainst Lorraine’s home in April 2015. Because their bank-\nruptcy case was active at that time, the Wades moved in the\nbankruptcy court to sanction Kreisler for violating the stay.\n The parties disagreed about the meaning of § 362(c)(3).\nKreisler contended that it lifts the entire stay. The Wades\n\fNo. 18-2564 3\n\nargued that the phrase “with respect to the debtor” limits\nthe statute’s effect so that it lifts the stay only for non-estate\nproperty. In their view the stay still prevented Kreisler from\nrecording the lien because Lorraine’s house was estate\nproperty.\n The bankruptcy judge denied the Wades’ motion, con-\ncluding that the entire stay lifted in February 2015, which\nvalidated Kreisler’s April 2015 lien. The Wades appealed to\nthe district court. But they also asked the bankruptcy judge\nto certify her order for direct appeal to this court under\n§ 158(d)(2)(A). The judge granted that request and issued a\ncertification order. The Wades then filed a notice of appeal,\nbut they never filed a petition for permission to appeal as\nrequired by Rule 8006(g) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy\nProcedure. Kreisler moved to dismiss based on this proce-\ndural oversight. We provisionally accepted the appeal but\ninstructed the parties to brief the dismissal motion with the\nmerits.\n II. Discussion\n We begin (and end) with the question whether the failure\nto file a petition for permission to appeal requires dismissal\nof this appeal. We are permitted to consider a direct appeal\nfrom an order of the bankruptcy court if the bankruptcy\njudge certifies the order for appeal and we “authorize[] the\ndirect appeal.” 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(2)(A). The Federal Rules of\nBankruptcy and Appellate Procedure jointly set forth the\nprocedural steps to obtain authorization for a direct appeal.\n As relevant here, Bankruptcy Rule 8006(g) mandates that\n“[w]ithin 30 days after the [bankruptcy court’s] certification\nbecomes effective … , a request for permission to take a\n\f4 No. 18-2564\n\ndirect appeal to the court of appeals must be filed with the\ncircuit clerk.” Ignoring this rule short-circuits our approval\nprocess, which is detailed in Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of\nAppellate Procedure. Rule 5 states that “[t]o request permis-\nsion to appeal … , a party must file a petition for permission\nto appeal.” FED. R. APP. P. 5(a)(1). Rule 5(b)(1) specifies the\nrequired contents of the petition, which include a statement\nof “the reasons why the appeal should be allowed and is\nauthorized by a statute or rule.” Rule 5(b)(2) provides a ten-\nday window for other parties to oppose the petition or file a\ncross-petition. Whether opposed or not, under Rule 5(b)(3)\nthe petition for leave to appeal is decided “without oral\nargument unless the court of appeals orders otherwise.”\n Because Rule 8006(g) is a “time limitation … found in a\nprocedural rule, not a statute, it is properly classified as a\nnonjurisdictional claim-processing rule.” Nutraceutical Corp.\nv. Lambert, 139 S. Ct. 710, 714 (2019). The question here is\nwhether Rule 8006(g) is a “mandatory” claim-processing\nrule, which “[i]f properly invoked … must be enforced.”\nHamer, 138 S. Ct. at 7.\n The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Nutraceutical\nCorp. is instructive on this point. There the Supreme Court\nconsidered Rule 23(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Proce-\ndure, which permits an interlocutory appeal of a class-\ncertification order if the appellant files a petition for permis-\nsion to appeal “within 14 days after the order is entered.”\nThe Court held that Rule 23(f) is a mandatory claim-\nprocessing rule, noting that “the Federal Rules of Appellate\nProcedure single out Civil Rule 23(f) for inflexible treat-\nment,” Nutraceutical, 139 S. Ct. at 715, because Rule 26(b)(1)\n\fNo. 18-2564 5\n\nbars courts from “extend[ing] the time to file … a petition for\npermission to appeal,” FED. R. APP. P. 26(b).\n That reasoning applies with equal force here. Like\nRule 23(f), Rule 8006(g) speaks in mandatory terms. See FED.\nR. BANKR. P. 8006(g) (petition “must be filed” before the\ndeadline). And like Rule 23(f), Rule 8006(g) requires a peti-\ntion for permission to appeal, so Rule 26(b)(1) “singles [it]\nout … for inflexible treatment.” Nutraceutical Corp., 139 S. Ct.\nat 715. Rule 8006(g) is thus a mandatory claim-processing\nrule. Because Kreisler properly invoked the rule, it “must be\nenforced.” Hamer, 138 S. Ct. at 17.\n In response the Wades rely on the lead opinion in In re\nTurner, 574 F.3d 349 (7th Cir. 2009), and our decision in\nMarshall v. Blake, 885 F.3d 1065 (7th Cir. 2018). In both cases\nthe appellants obtained certification from the bankruptcy\ncourt for a direct appeal but failed to file a petition for\npermission to appeal as required by the Bankruptcy and\nAppellate Rules. In both cases we declined to dismiss the\nappeal, but the decisions rested on slightly different\ngrounds.\n The lead opinion in Turner, representing only the author’s\nviews, concluded that the record transmitted from the\nbankruptcy court contained the information that a petition\nfor leave to appeal would have provided. See 574 F.3d at 352\n(Posner, J.). Invoking the Supreme Court’s decision in Torres\nv. Oakland Scavenger Co., the lead opinion concluded that the\nrecord sent by the bankruptcy court brought\n the case within the principle that “if a litigant\n files papers in a fashion that is technically at\n variance with the letter of a procedural rule, a\n\f6 No. 18-2564\n\n court may nonetheless find that the litigant has\n complied with the rule if the litigant’s action is\n the functional equivalent of what the rule re-\n quires.”\nId. (quoting Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U.S. 312, 316–\n17 (1988)). In the lead opinion’s view, dismissal was unwar-\nranted because treating the bankruptcy-court record as the\n“functional equivalent” of a petition would not prejudice the\nappellee. Id.; see also id. at 356 (Van Bokkelen, J., concurring\nin the judgment).\n In Marshall we dropped any reliance on functional equiv-\nalence and instead emphasized Turner’s discussion of harm-\nlessness. See 885 F.3d at 1073 (“[W]e have excused the failure\nto file a Rule 5 petition if the party filed a timely notice of\nappeal and ‘no one is harmed by the failure.’” (quoting\nTurner, 574 F.3d at 354)). Marshall found that the failure to\ncomply with Rule 8006(g) was harmless in that case.\n Turner was decided before Hamer clarified the effect of\nmandatory claim-processing rules. The lead opinion pre-\nsumed that as long as a rule is not jurisdictional, courts\ncould create equitable exceptions. See 574 F.3d at 354 (“[T]he\nfailure to comply with a rule that is not jurisdictional … is\nnot fatal if no one is harmed by the failure … .”). And\nMarshall postdates Hamer but does not mention the case.\nThere the litigants framed the Rule 8006(g) objection in\njurisdictional terms, and our opinion treated the issue ac-\ncordingly, concluding that “we have jurisdiction to hear the\ndirect appeal” after rejecting the appellee’s Rule 8006(g)\nobjection. Marshall, 885 F.3d at 1074.\n\fNo. 18-2564 7\n\n Marshall and Turner are irreconcilable with the Supreme\nCourt’s recent decisions on the effect of noncompliance with\nmandatory claim-processing rules. Marshall’s harmless-error\nanalysis cannot coexist with the Court’s decision in Manrique\nv. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1266, 1274 (2017), which held that\n“mandatory claim-processing rules … are not subject to\nharmless-error analysis.” More broadly, the Court’s recent\ndecisions in this area have consistently compelled enforce-\nment of mandatory claim-processing rules. See, e.g.,\nNutraceutical Corp., 139 S. Ct. at 714 (stating that mandatory\nclaim-processing rules are “unalterable”); Hamer, 138 S. Ct.\nat 17 (stating that mandatory claim-processing rules “must\nbe enforced”); Manrique, 137 S. Ct. at 1272 (“[T]he court’s\nduty to dismiss the appeal was mandatory.”) (quotation\nmarks omitted). Adopting a harmless-error exception, as\nMarshall did, necessarily alters an “unalterable” claim-\nprocessing rule.\n The approach of Turner’s lead opinion is also unsustaina-\nble in light of the Court’s recent cases. The Wades note that\nTorres remains on the books. True, but we’re not persuaded\nthat we may accept the bankruptcy court’s certification order\nas the functional equivalent of a petition for permission to\nappeal.\n To start, it’s unclear if Torres itself ever extended that far.\nSee 487 U.S. at 315–16 (“Permitting imperfect but substantial\ncompliance with a technical requirement is not the same as\nwaiving the requirement altogether … .”). Regardless, the\nCourt has now clearly rejected the reasoning of the lead\nopinion in Turner. In Manrique a criminal defendant failed to\nfile a second notice of appeal after the lower court issued an\namended judgment, as Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Crimi-\n\f8 No. 18-2564\n\nnal Procedure requires. The dissent reasoned that “the\nclerk’s transmission of the amended judgment to the Court\nof Appeals [was] an adequate substitute for a second notice\nof appeal.” Manrique, 137 S. Ct. at 1275 (Ginsburg, J., dissent-\ning). But the Court didn’t agree. It treated Rule 4 as a manda-\ntory claim-processing rule and held that the court of appeals\n“may not overlook the failure to file a notice of appeal at\nall.” Id. at 1274 (majority opinion). Because that omission ran\nafoul of Rule 4, the appeal had to be dismissed. Id.\n The same result is required here. We cannot overlook the\nWades’ failure to file a petition for permission to appeal.\nBecause Kreisler properly objected to the violation of\nRule 8006(g), our “duty to dismiss the appeal [is] mandato-\nry.“ Id. at 1272 (quotation marks omitted). Based on the clear\nconflict with Nutraceutical Corp., Hamer, and Manrique, we\noverrule Turner and Marshall to the extent that they ap-\nproved exceptions to compliance with Bankruptcy\nRule 8006(g) and Rule 5(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appel-\nlate Procedure—whether based on the functional-\nequivalence doctrine, the harmless-error doctrine, or both. 1\nThe Wades must pursue their appeal through the ordinary\nprocess, which starts with the district court.\n APPEAL DISMISSED.\n\n\n\n\n1 Because this opinion overrules circuit precedent, we circulated it to all\njudges in active service. See 7TH CIR. R. 40(e). No judge favored rehearing\nen banc.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Harold Wade v. Kreisler Law, P.C.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-06-14\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-2564\\nIN RE:\\n HAROLD WADE and LORRAINE WADE,\\n Debtors-Appellants.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 15-BK-01035 — LaShonda A. Hunt, Bankruptcy Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED FEBRUARY 6, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 14, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before KANNE, SYKES, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.\\n SYKES, Circuit Judge. Debtors Harold and Lorraine Wade\\nmoved for sanctions against Kreisler Law, P.C., alleging that\\nthe law firm violated the automatic stay arising from their\\nbankruptcy petition by filing a lien against Lorraine’s home.\\nThe couple had voluntarily dismissed a prior bankruptcy\\npetition just a few months earlier, so the bankruptcy judge\\ndenied their motion based on 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3), which\\nlifts the automatic stay after 30 days in the case of a succes-\\nsive petition. But the bankruptcy courts are divided over the\\nproper interpretation of § 362(c)(3), so the judge certified her\\n\\f2 No. 18-2564\\n\\norder for direct appeal to this court under 28 U.S.C.\\n§ 158(d)(2)(A). A timely notice of appeal followed.\\n But the Wades never filed a petition for permission to\\nappeal as required by Rule 8006(g) of the Federal Rules of\\nBankruptcy Procedure. Kreisler moved to dismiss the appeal\\nbased on this omission. We provisionally accepted the\\nappeal and directed the parties to address the effect of the\\nprocedural violation in their merits briefs.\\n We now dismiss the appeal. Rule 8006(g) is a mandatory\\nclaim-processing rule, and if properly invoked, it must be\\nenforced. See Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of Chi.,\\n138 S. Ct. 13, 17 (2017). Because Kreisler properly objected,\\nthe appeal must be dismissed.\\n I. Background\\n The Wades filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition in\\nJanuary 2015, which automatically stayed any collection\\nactions against their property. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). But the\\npetition was successive—they had voluntarily dismissed a\\ndifferent petition two months earlier—and § 362(c)(3) states\\nthat if a prior petition “was pending within the preceding\\n1-year period but was dismissed,” the automatic stay “shall\\nterminate with respect to the debtor on the 30th day after the\\nfiling of the later case.”\\n Just how much of the stay was lifted became relevant af-\\nter the Wades discovered that Kreisler recorded a lien\\nagainst Lorraine’s home in April 2015. Because their bank-\\nruptcy case was active at that time, the Wades moved in the\\nbankruptcy court to sanction Kreisler for violating the stay.\\n The parties disagreed about the meaning of § 362(c)(3).\\nKreisler contended that it lifts the entire stay. The Wades\\n\\fNo. 18-2564 3\\n\\nargued that the phrase “with respect to the debtor” limits\\nthe statute’s effect so that it lifts the stay only for non-estate\\nproperty. In their view the stay still prevented Kreisler from\\nrecording the lien because Lorraine’s house was estate\\nproperty.\\n The bankruptcy judge denied the Wades’ motion, con-\\ncluding that the entire stay lifted in February 2015, which\\nvalidated Kreisler’s April 2015 lien. The Wades appealed to\\nthe district court. But they also asked the bankruptcy judge\\nto certify her order for direct appeal to this court under\\n§ 158(d)(2)(A). The judge granted that request and issued a\\ncertification order. The Wades then filed a notice of appeal,\\nbut they never filed a petition for permission to appeal as\\nrequired by Rule 8006(g) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy\\nProcedure. Kreisler moved to dismiss based on this proce-\\ndural oversight. We provisionally accepted the appeal but\\ninstructed the parties to brief the dismissal motion with the\\nmerits.\\n II. Discussion\\n We begin (and end) with the question whether the failure\\nto file a petition for permission to appeal requires dismissal\\nof this appeal. We are permitted to consider a direct appeal\\nfrom an order of the bankruptcy court if the bankruptcy\\njudge certifies the order for appeal and we “authorize[] the\\ndirect appeal.” 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(2)(A). The Federal Rules of\\nBankruptcy and Appellate Procedure jointly set forth the\\nprocedural steps to obtain authorization for a direct appeal.\\n As relevant here, Bankruptcy Rule 8006(g) mandates that\\n“[w]ithin 30 days after the [bankruptcy court’s] certification\\nbecomes effective … , a request for permission to take a\\n\\f4 No. 18-2564\\n\\ndirect appeal to the court of appeals must be filed with the\\ncircuit clerk.” Ignoring this rule short-circuits our approval\\nprocess, which is detailed in Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of\\nAppellate Procedure. Rule 5 states that “[t]o request permis-\\nsion to appeal … , a party must file a petition for permission\\nto appeal.” FED. R. APP. P. 5(a)(1). Rule 5(b)(1) specifies the\\nrequired contents of the petition, which include a statement\\nof “the reasons why the appeal should be allowed and is\\nauthorized by a statute or rule.” Rule 5(b)(2) provides a ten-\\nday window for other parties to oppose the petition or file a\\ncross-petition. Whether opposed or not, under Rule 5(b)(3)\\nthe petition for leave to appeal is decided “without oral\\nargument unless the court of appeals orders otherwise.”\\n Because Rule 8006(g) is a “time limitation … found in a\\nprocedural rule, not a statute, it is properly classified as a\\nnonjurisdictional claim-processing rule.” Nutraceutical Corp.\\nv. Lambert, 139 S. Ct. 710, 714 (2019). The question here is\\nwhether Rule 8006(g) is a “mandatory” claim-processing\\nrule, which “[i]f properly invoked … must be enforced.”\\nHamer, 138 S. Ct. at 7.\\n The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Nutraceutical\\nCorp. is instructive on this point. There the Supreme Court\\nconsidered Rule 23(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Proce-\\ndure, which permits an interlocutory appeal of a class-\\ncertification order if the appellant files a petition for permis-\\nsion to appeal “within 14 days after the order is entered.”\\nThe Court held that Rule 23(f) is a mandatory claim-\\nprocessing rule, noting that “the Federal Rules of Appellate\\nProcedure single out Civil Rule 23(f) for inflexible treat-\\nment,” Nutraceutical, 139 S. Ct. at 715, because Rule 26(b)(1)\\n\\fNo. 18-2564 5\\n\\nbars courts from “extend[ing] the time to file … a petition for\\npermission to appeal,” FED. R. APP. P. 26(b).\\n That reasoning applies with equal force here. Like\\nRule 23(f), Rule 8006(g) speaks in mandatory terms. See FED.\\nR. BANKR. P. 8006(g) (petition “must be filed” before the\\ndeadline). And like Rule 23(f), Rule 8006(g) requires a peti-\\ntion for permission to appeal, so Rule 26(b)(1) “singles [it]\\nout … for inflexible treatment.” Nutraceutical Corp., 139 S. Ct.\\nat 715. Rule 8006(g) is thus a mandatory claim-processing\\nrule. Because Kreisler properly invoked the rule, it “must be\\nenforced.” Hamer, 138 S. Ct. at 17.\\n In response the Wades rely on the lead opinion in In re\\nTurner, 574 F.3d 349 (7th Cir. 2009), and our decision in\\nMarshall v. Blake, 885 F.3d 1065 (7th Cir. 2018). In both cases\\nthe appellants obtained certification from the bankruptcy\\ncourt for a direct appeal but failed to file a petition for\\npermission to appeal as required by the Bankruptcy and\\nAppellate Rules. In both cases we declined to dismiss the\\nappeal, but the decisions rested on slightly different\\ngrounds.\\n The lead opinion in Turner, representing only the author’s\\nviews, concluded that the record transmitted from the\\nbankruptcy court contained the information that a petition\\nfor leave to appeal would have provided. See 574 F.3d at 352\\n(Posner, J.). Invoking the Supreme Court’s decision in Torres\\nv. Oakland Scavenger Co., the lead opinion concluded that the\\nrecord sent by the bankruptcy court brought\\n the case within the principle that “if a litigant\\n files papers in a fashion that is technically at\\n variance with the letter of a procedural rule, a\\n\\f6 No. 18-2564\\n\\n court may nonetheless find that the litigant has\\n complied with the rule if the litigant’s action is\\n the functional equivalent of what the rule re-\\n quires.”\\nId. (quoting Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U.S. 312, 316–\\n17 (1988)). In the lead opinion’s view, dismissal was unwar-\\nranted because treating the bankruptcy-court record as the\\n“functional equivalent” of a petition would not prejudice the\\nappellee. Id.; see also id. at 356 (Van Bokkelen, J., concurring\\nin the judgment).\\n In Marshall we dropped any reliance on functional equiv-\\nalence and instead emphasized Turner’s discussion of harm-\\nlessness. See 885 F.3d at 1073 (“[W]e have excused the failure\\nto file a Rule 5 petition if the party filed a timely notice of\\nappeal and ‘no one is harmed by the failure.’” (quoting\\nTurner, 574 F.3d at 354)). Marshall found that the failure to\\ncomply with Rule 8006(g) was harmless in that case.\\n Turner was decided before Hamer clarified the effect of\\nmandatory claim-processing rules. The lead opinion pre-\\nsumed that as long as a rule is not jurisdictional, courts\\ncould create equitable exceptions. See 574 F.3d at 354 (“[T]he\\nfailure to comply with a rule that is not jurisdictional … is\\nnot fatal if no one is harmed by the failure … .”). And\\nMarshall postdates Hamer but does not mention the case.\\nThere the litigants framed the Rule 8006(g) objection in\\njurisdictional terms, and our opinion treated the issue ac-\\ncordingly, concluding that “we have jurisdiction to hear the\\ndirect appeal” after rejecting the appellee’s Rule 8006(g)\\nobjection. Marshall, 885 F.3d at 1074.\\n\\fNo. 18-2564 7\\n\\n Marshall and Turner are irreconcilable with the Supreme\\nCourt’s recent decisions on the effect of noncompliance with\\nmandatory claim-processing rules. Marshall’s harmless-error\\nanalysis cannot coexist with the Court’s decision in Manrique\\nv. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1266, 1274 (2017), which held that\\n“mandatory claim-processing rules … are not subject to\\nharmless-error analysis.” More broadly, the Court’s recent\\ndecisions in this area have consistently compelled enforce-\\nment of mandatory claim-processing rules. See, e.g.,\\nNutraceutical Corp., 139 S. Ct. at 714 (stating that mandatory\\nclaim-processing rules are “unalterable”); Hamer, 138 S. Ct.\\nat 17 (stating that mandatory claim-processing rules “must\\nbe enforced”); Manrique, 137 S. Ct. at 1272 (“[T]he court’s\\nduty to dismiss the appeal was mandatory.”) (quotation\\nmarks omitted). Adopting a harmless-error exception, as\\nMarshall did, necessarily alters an “unalterable” claim-\\nprocessing rule.\\n The approach of Turner’s lead opinion is also unsustaina-\\nble in light of the Court’s recent cases. The Wades note that\\nTorres remains on the books. True, but we’re not persuaded\\nthat we may accept the bankruptcy court’s certification order\\nas the functional equivalent of a petition for permission to\\nappeal.\\n To start, it’s unclear if Torres itself ever extended that far.\\nSee 487 U.S. at 315–16 (“Permitting imperfect but substantial\\ncompliance with a technical requirement is not the same as\\nwaiving the requirement altogether … .”). Regardless, the\\nCourt has now clearly rejected the reasoning of the lead\\nopinion in Turner. In Manrique a criminal defendant failed to\\nfile a second notice of appeal after the lower court issued an\\namended judgment, as Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Crimi-\\n\\f8 No. 18-2564\\n\\nnal Procedure requires. The dissent reasoned that “the\\nclerk’s transmission of the amended judgment to the Court\\nof Appeals [was] an adequate substitute for a second notice\\nof appeal.” Manrique, 137 S. Ct. at 1275 (Ginsburg, J., dissent-\\ning). But the Court didn’t agree. It treated Rule 4 as a manda-\\ntory claim-processing rule and held that the court of appeals\\n“may not overlook the failure to file a notice of appeal at\\nall.” Id. at 1274 (majority opinion). Because that omission ran\\nafoul of Rule 4, the appeal had to be dismissed. Id.\\n The same result is required here. We cannot overlook the\\nWades’ failure to file a petition for permission to appeal.\\nBecause Kreisler properly objected to the violation of\\nRule 8006(g), our “duty to dismiss the appeal [is] mandato-\\nry.“ Id. at 1272 (quotation marks omitted). Based on the clear\\nconflict with Nutraceutical Corp., Hamer, and Manrique, we\\noverrule Turner and Marshall to the extent that they ap-\\nproved exceptions to compliance with Bankruptcy\\nRule 8006(g) and Rule 5(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appel-\\nlate Procedure—whether based on the functional-\\nequivalence doctrine, the harmless-error doctrine, or both. 1\\nThe Wades must pursue their appeal through the ordinary\\nprocess, which starts with the district court.\\n APPEAL DISMISSED.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n1 Because this opinion overrules circuit precedent, we circulated it to all\\njudges in active service. See 7TH CIR. R. 40(e). No judge favored rehearing\\nen banc.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2586,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":8444009,"string":"8,444,009"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"IN RE: Harold WADE and Lorraine Wade, Debtors-Appellants."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"In re Wade"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-06-14"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"No. 18-2564"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Hamilton, Kanne, Sykes\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"\", \"type\": \"020lead\", \"text\": \"\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/8415444/\", \"author_raw\": \"\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"HAMILTON"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"KANNE"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"SYKES"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/8444009/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":6,"string":"6"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: IN RE: Harold WADE and Lorraine Wade, Debtors-Appellants.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-06-14\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: IN RE: Harold WADE and Lorraine Wade, Debtors-Appellants.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-06-14\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2587,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4630160,"string":"4,630,160"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"Gheorgui MARTOV, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Gheorgui Martov v. United States"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-06-17"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-3424"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before FLAUM, HAMILTON, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"PER CURIAM\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-3424\\nGHEORGUI MARTOV,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Defendant-Appellee.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 1:18-cv-1211 — Ronald A. Guzmán, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n SUBMITTED MAY 9, 2019* — DECIDED JUNE 17, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before FLAUM, HAMILTON, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\\n PER CURIAM. The government arrested Gheorgui Martov\\nfor wire fraud and seized several items of his personal prop-\\nerty including a watch, $4,035 in cash, a car, and nine firearms.\\n\\n *We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the\\n\\nbriefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and\\noral argument would not significantly aid the court. FED. R. APP.\\nP. 34(a)(2)(C).\\n\\f2 No. 18-3424\\n\\nIn exchange for Martov’s guilty plea, the government agreed\\nnot to pursue criminal forfeiture. But the government never\\nagreed to forgo administrative forfeiture proceedings, which\\nit had already initiated by sending notice to Martov and his\\nattorney. Martov responded to the government’s notice of ad-\\nministrative forfeiture by filing claims for the car and guns.\\nThe government denied both claims and declared the prop-\\nerty forfeited.\\n Martov then brought this action in the district court, seek-\\ning the return of the property. The district court denied relief,\\nand we now affirm, as Martov has failed to advance any mer-\\nitorious arguments. In doing so, however, we note our reser-\\nvations with the procedural path that the government took in\\nexecuting the forfeiture.\\n I\\n A\\n Martov participated in a wire fraud scheme in which he\\ncollected fraudulently obtained debit card numbers and per-\\nsonal identification numbers and then distributed them to\\nothers who used the information to make cash withdrawals\\nfrom ATMs. The conduct cost the victims approximately\\n$1.2 million. The government eventually caught on, and a\\ngrand jury indicted Martov on 22 counts of wire fraud in vio-\\nlation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, four counts of money laundering in\\nviolation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(B)(i), and one count each of\\nconspiracy to commit money laundering in violation of\\n18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) and obstruction of justice in violation of\\n18 U.S.C. § 1519. The grand jury also advanced two criminal\\nforfeiture allegations totaling $250,000.\\n\\fNo. 18-3424 3\\n\\n When FBI agents arrested Martov on March 24, 2014, they\\nseized a $25,000 watch, $4,035 cash, and a 2008 Mercedes-\\nBenz. The next day, when executing a search warrant at Mar-\\ntov’s home, the agents found and seized nine firearms.\\n Martov eventually pleaded guilty to a single count of wire\\nfraud. Under the plea agreement, the government agreed to\\ndismiss the criminal forfeiture allegations (which it did) but\\nreserved the option to pursue “any administrative or judicial\\ncivil claim.” The district court sentenced Martov to seven\\nyears’ imprisonment.\\n B\\n Separate and apart from Martov’s criminal proceeding,\\nthe government initiated an administrative forfeiture pro-\\nceeding for the property that it seized during Martov’s arrest\\nand the search of his home. The applicable statute, 18 U.S.C.\\n§ 983, required the government to notify Martov of any forfei-\\nture proceedings within 60 days from the seizures, see id.\\n§ 983(a)(1)(A)(i), meaning that it had until May 23, 2014 to no-\\ntify Martov of forfeiture proceedings for the watch, cash, and\\ncar (or else return them to Martov, see § 983 (a)(1)(F)) and un-\\ntil May 24 to do the same for the firearms.\\n The government sent certified mail to Martov at his prison\\naddress and to his lawyer regarding the cash on May 16, 2014\\nand the watch on May 20, 2014. The government did the same\\nfor the car on December 23, 2015—of course, by then\\n21 months had passed since the government’s seizure of the\\ncar, a plain violation of the 60-day deadline in\\n§ 983(a)(1)(A)(i). The record does not make clear when the\\ngovernment notified Martov about the proceedings over the\\nfirearms or how it did so. The government’s notices advised\\n\\f4 No. 18-3424\\n\\nMartov that he needed to submit a claim for each piece of\\nproperty or he would forfeit his rights to it. Martov never filed\\nclaims for the watch or cash, and the government declared\\nthem forfeited.\\n But Martov did file claims for the car and guns, triggering\\ncertain statutory protections. Specifically, the government\\nhad 90 days from the date of Martov's claim to file a com-\\nplaint, as set forth in the Supplemental Rules for Certain Ad-\\nmiralty and Maritime Claims, or return the property. See 18\\nU.S.C. § 983(a)(3).\\n The government missed that deadline, waiting five\\nmonths before denying Martov’s claim for the car. And when\\ndenying his claim, the government informed Martov that he\\nhad ten days during which he “may request reconsideration.”\\nSee 41 C.F.R. § 128-48.502(e) (explaining that a request for re-\\nconsideration may be submitted within ten days from the\\ndate of the government’s letter denying a claim). When the\\nten-day deadline passed without word from Martov, the gov-\\nernment entered what it called a “Declaration of Abandon-\\nment.” The Declaration explained that “a claim for the prop-\\nerty has been received and denied” and that title to the car\\nhad vested in the United States.\\n As for the firearms, the government again missed its dead-\\nline for responding to Martov’s claim. Six months after receiv-\\ning the claim, the government finally agreed to return four of\\nthe nine to the care of Martov’s brother. On the remaining five\\nguns, the government rejected Martov’s claim and deemed\\nthem forfeited when Martov did not timely seek reconsidera-\\ntion.\\n\\fNo. 18-3424 5\\n\\n C\\n What gives rise to this appeal is Martov’s filing a motion\\nin the district court, requesting the return of his watch,\\nmoney, car, and guns. Citing Federal Rule of Criminal Proce-\\ndure 41(g) (Motion to Return Property), he argued that the\\ngovernment wrongfully seized the property during the initial\\narrest and search because none of the seized items related to\\nhis crime. He also contended that the government violated the\\nplea agreement in his criminal case by taking the property\\nthrough administrative forfeiture proceedings.\\n The district court first noted that Rule 41(g) cannot be used\\nto seek the return of property that has been administratively\\nforfeited, so Martov’s motion was improper. Moving then to\\nconsider whether Martov might otherwise be entitled to re-\\nlief, the court observed that Martov had failed to argue that\\nthe government’s notice of the administrative forfeiture pro-\\nceedings was inadequate. This failure, the district court ex-\\nplained, doomed Martov’s case because 18 U.S.C. § 983(e)\\nlimited the scope of the court’s review to whether the govern-\\nment provided adequate notice of the administrative forfei-\\nture. And in any event, the court added, Martov’s plea agree-\\nment did not entitle him to relief because the government\\nagreed to forgo only criminal, not administrative, forfeiture\\nproceedings.\\n II\\n On appeal Martov again invokes Rule 41(g) and argues\\nthat the government illegally seized his property and then vi-\\nolated the plea agreement by using the tools of administrative\\nforfeiture to take title to it.\\n\\f6 No. 18-3424\\n\\n A\\n We agree with the district court as to the inapplicability of\\nRule 41(g). The forfeiture proceedings that Martov is chal-\\nlenging are civil, and thus Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure\\n41 does not apply. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 1(a)(5)(B); United States\\nv. Sims, 376 F.3d 705, 707–08 (7th Cir. 2004).\\n The district court also properly observed that Martov\\nnever challenged the adequacy of the government’s adminis-\\ntrative forfeiture notice. He has not done so on appeal either,\\naltogether omitting any specific challenges to the govern-\\nment’s notice letters, or more generally, a due process chal-\\nlenge to the government’s conduct or the scheme it has estab-\\nlished for executing administrative forfeitures. Martov, there-\\nfore, has not offered any valid basis upon which we may grant\\nrelief. See Chairez v. United States, 355 F.3d 1099, 1101 (7th Cir.\\n2004) (explaining that the scope of a federal court’s review of\\nadministrative forfeiture proceedings is limited); see also Li-\\nnarez v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 2 F.3d 208, 213 (7th Cir.\\n1993). The only arguments he does advance—that the govern-\\nment illegally seized his property and also violated the terms\\nof his plea agreement by pursuing administrative forfeiture—\\nare outside the scope of our review and, in any event, appear\\nto lack merit.\\n A future case may require us to consider the scope and\\nlimits, jurisdictional or otherwise, of a challenge to an admin-\\nistrative forfeiture. Some challenges may sound in due pro-\\ncess and others in statutory terms. Because these issues are\\nnot before us here, their development will have to await an-\\nother case.\\n\\fNo. 18-3424 7\\n\\n B\\n We conclude with a few words about the procedural path\\nof the administrative forfeiture the government charted here.\\nThe Supreme Court has advised that “[f]orfeitures are not fa-\\nvored; they should be enforced only when within both letter\\nand spirit of the law.” United States v. One 1936 Model Ford V-\\n8 De Luxe Coach, 307 U.S. 219, 226 (1939); see also United States\\nv. Real Properties located at 7215 Longboat Drive (Lot 24),\\n750 F.3d 968, 974 (8th Cir. 2014) (underscoring the same dis-\\nfavor of forfeiture).\\n If Martov had preserved and advanced an argument on\\nappeal that the government did not provide adequate notice\\nof administrative forfeiture we would have almost certainly\\nconcluded that the notice was adequate. In Dusenbery v.\\nUnited States, 534 U.S. 161 (2002), the FBI sent a claimant writ-\\nten notice via certified mail to the jail where he was housed,\\nand the Supreme Court determined that the government’s ap-\\nproach was “clearly acceptable” because it was reasonably\\ncalculated to reach him and inform him of the pendency of\\nthe administrative forfeiture. See id. at 172–73. The govern-\\nment here did even more, sending its notice of administrative\\nforfeiture by certified mail to Martov in jail and to his counsel.\\n But our review of the record also reveals that at several\\njunctures the government fell short of adhering to the stand-\\nards Congress prescribed in § 983 for implementing adminis-\\ntrative forfeiture.\\n For example, the government did not meet statutory dead-\\nlines on several occasions. The government sent notice to\\nMartov concerning the forfeiture of his car long after the man-\\n\\f8 No. 18-3424\\n\\ndated deadline for doing so had passed. Sec-\\ntion 983(a)(1)(A)(i) required the government to notify Martov\\nthat it was beginning forfeiture proceedings within 60 days of\\nseizing the car, but the government did not send notice for\\n21 months. The government also responded to Martov’s\\nclaims for the car and the guns long after the 90-day deadline\\nCongress prescribed in § 983(a)(3)(A). For reasons unex-\\nplained by the record, it took the government five months to\\nrespond to Martov’s claim for the car and six months to re-\\nspond to his claim for the guns.\\n By way of another example, the government never filed a\\ncomplaint for forfeiture in federal court. As soon as Martov\\nfiled claims for the car and guns, § 983 imposed a clear obli-\\ngation on the government. “Not later than 90 days after a\\nclaim has been filed, the Government shall file a complaint for\\nforfeiture in the manner set forth in the Supplemental Rules\\nfor Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims or return the\\nproperty pending the filing of a complaint.” 18 U.S.C.\\n§ 983(a)(3)(A). The government did neither here. The govern-\\nment instead denied Martov’s claims, informed him that he\\nhad ten days to ask the government to reconsider its decision,\\nand then declared the property abandoned when he did not\\ndo so. All of this was done, however, despite nothing in § 983\\nsuggesting that Martov needed to request reconsideration to\\ntrigger the government’s duty to either file a civil complaint\\nor return the property. Also concerning is that the govern-\\nment never warned Martov that his choosing not to seek re-\\nconsideration would result in forfeiting the property.\\n Martov did not contest the forfeiture on any of these\\ngrounds in his correspondence with the government, before\\nthe district court, or on appeal, and thus they offer no basis of\\n\\fNo. 18-3424 9\\n\\nrelief. See United States v. Wilson, 699 F.3d 789, 791 (4th Cir.\\n2012). Nor is the point of our observations to nitpick. We offer\\nthem to underscore the gravity of forfeiture and the impera-\\ntive of taking care to comply with the letter and spirit of the\\nprocedural requirements mandated by law. Sound process is\\nimportant.\\n AFFIRMED\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4407413/\", \"author_raw\": \"PER CURIAM\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"FLAUM"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"HAMILTON"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"SCUDDER"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"FLAUM\": \", Circuit\", \"HAMILTON\": \", Circuit\", \"SCUDDER\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4630160/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":6,"string":"6"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Gheorgui MARTOV, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-06-17\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-3424\nGHEORGUI MARTOV,\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\n v.\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n Defendant-Appellee.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 1:18-cv-1211 — Ronald A. Guzmán, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n SUBMITTED MAY 9, 2019* — DECIDED JUNE 17, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before FLAUM, HAMILTON, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\n PER CURIAM. The government arrested Gheorgui Martov\nfor wire fraud and seized several items of his personal prop-\nerty including a watch, $4,035 in cash, a car, and nine firearms.\n\n *We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the\n\nbriefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and\noral argument would not significantly aid the court. FED. R. APP.\nP. 34(a)(2)(C).\n\f2 No. 18-3424\n\nIn exchange for Martov’s guilty plea, the government agreed\nnot to pursue criminal forfeiture. But the government never\nagreed to forgo administrative forfeiture proceedings, which\nit had already initiated by sending notice to Martov and his\nattorney. Martov responded to the government’s notice of ad-\nministrative forfeiture by filing claims for the car and guns.\nThe government denied both claims and declared the prop-\nerty forfeited.\n Martov then brought this action in the district court, seek-\ning the return of the property. The district court denied relief,\nand we now affirm, as Martov has failed to advance any mer-\nitorious arguments. In doing so, however, we note our reser-\nvations with the procedural path that the government took in\nexecuting the forfeiture.\n I\n A\n Martov participated in a wire fraud scheme in which he\ncollected fraudulently obtained debit card numbers and per-\nsonal identification numbers and then distributed them to\nothers who used the information to make cash withdrawals\nfrom ATMs. The conduct cost the victims approximately\n$1.2 million. The government eventually caught on, and a\ngrand jury indicted Martov on 22 counts of wire fraud in vio-\nlation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, four counts of money laundering in\nviolation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(B)(i), and one count each of\nconspiracy to commit money laundering in violation of\n18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) and obstruction of justice in violation of\n18 U.S.C. § 1519. The grand jury also advanced two criminal\nforfeiture allegations totaling $250,000.\n\fNo. 18-3424 3\n\n When FBI agents arrested Martov on March 24, 2014, they\nseized a $25,000 watch, $4,035 cash, and a 2008 Mercedes-\nBenz. The next day, when executing a search warrant at Mar-\ntov’s home, the agents found and seized nine firearms.\n Martov eventually pleaded guilty to a single count of wire\nfraud. Under the plea agreement, the government agreed to\ndismiss the criminal forfeiture allegations (which it did) but\nreserved the option to pursue “any administrative or judicial\ncivil claim.” The district court sentenced Martov to seven\nyears’ imprisonment.\n B\n Separate and apart from Martov’s criminal proceeding,\nthe government initiated an administrative forfeiture pro-\nceeding for the property that it seized during Martov’s arrest\nand the search of his home. The applicable statute, 18 U.S.C.\n§ 983, required the government to notify Martov of any forfei-\nture proceedings within 60 days from the seizures, see id.\n§ 983(a)(1)(A)(i), meaning that it had until May 23, 2014 to no-\ntify Martov of forfeiture proceedings for the watch, cash, and\ncar (or else return them to Martov, see § 983 (a)(1)(F)) and un-\ntil May 24 to do the same for the firearms.\n The government sent certified mail to Martov at his prison\naddress and to his lawyer regarding the cash on May 16, 2014\nand the watch on May 20, 2014. The government did the same\nfor the car on December 23, 2015—of course, by then\n21 months had passed since the government’s seizure of the\ncar, a plain violation of the 60-day deadline in\n§ 983(a)(1)(A)(i). The record does not make clear when the\ngovernment notified Martov about the proceedings over the\nfirearms or how it did so. The government’s notices advised\n\f4 No. 18-3424\n\nMartov that he needed to submit a claim for each piece of\nproperty or he would forfeit his rights to it. Martov never filed\nclaims for the watch or cash, and the government declared\nthem forfeited.\n But Martov did file claims for the car and guns, triggering\ncertain statutory protections. Specifically, the government\nhad 90 days from the date of Martov's claim to file a com-\nplaint, as set forth in the Supplemental Rules for Certain Ad-\nmiralty and Maritime Claims, or return the property. See 18\nU.S.C. § 983(a)(3).\n The government missed that deadline, waiting five\nmonths before denying Martov’s claim for the car. And when\ndenying his claim, the government informed Martov that he\nhad ten days during which he “may request reconsideration.”\nSee 41 C.F.R. § 128-48.502(e) (explaining that a request for re-\nconsideration may be submitted within ten days from the\ndate of the government’s letter denying a claim). When the\nten-day deadline passed without word from Martov, the gov-\nernment entered what it called a “Declaration of Abandon-\nment.” The Declaration explained that “a claim for the prop-\nerty has been received and denied” and that title to the car\nhad vested in the United States.\n As for the firearms, the government again missed its dead-\nline for responding to Martov’s claim. Six months after receiv-\ning the claim, the government finally agreed to return four of\nthe nine to the care of Martov’s brother. On the remaining five\nguns, the government rejected Martov’s claim and deemed\nthem forfeited when Martov did not timely seek reconsidera-\ntion.\n\fNo. 18-3424 5\n\n C\n What gives rise to this appeal is Martov’s filing a motion\nin the district court, requesting the return of his watch,\nmoney, car, and guns. Citing Federal Rule of Criminal Proce-\ndure 41(g) (Motion to Return Property), he argued that the\ngovernment wrongfully seized the property during the initial\narrest and search because none of the seized items related to\nhis crime. He also contended that the government violated the\nplea agreement in his criminal case by taking the property\nthrough administrative forfeiture proceedings.\n The district court first noted that Rule 41(g) cannot be used\nto seek the return of property that has been administratively\nforfeited, so Martov’s motion was improper. Moving then to\nconsider whether Martov might otherwise be entitled to re-\nlief, the court observed that Martov had failed to argue that\nthe government’s notice of the administrative forfeiture pro-\nceedings was inadequate. This failure, the district court ex-\nplained, doomed Martov’s case because 18 U.S.C. § 983(e)\nlimited the scope of the court’s review to whether the govern-\nment provided adequate notice of the administrative forfei-\nture. And in any event, the court added, Martov’s plea agree-\nment did not entitle him to relief because the government\nagreed to forgo only criminal, not administrative, forfeiture\nproceedings.\n II\n On appeal Martov again invokes Rule 41(g) and argues\nthat the government illegally seized his property and then vi-\nolated the plea agreement by using the tools of administrative\nforfeiture to take title to it.\n\f6 No. 18-3424\n\n A\n We agree with the district court as to the inapplicability of\nRule 41(g). The forfeiture proceedings that Martov is chal-\nlenging are civil, and thus Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure\n41 does not apply. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 1(a)(5)(B); United States\nv. Sims, 376 F.3d 705, 707–08 (7th Cir. 2004).\n The district court also properly observed that Martov\nnever challenged the adequacy of the government’s adminis-\ntrative forfeiture notice. He has not done so on appeal either,\naltogether omitting any specific challenges to the govern-\nment’s notice letters, or more generally, a due process chal-\nlenge to the government’s conduct or the scheme it has estab-\nlished for executing administrative forfeitures. Martov, there-\nfore, has not offered any valid basis upon which we may grant\nrelief. See Chairez v. United States, 355 F.3d 1099, 1101 (7th Cir.\n2004) (explaining that the scope of a federal court’s review of\nadministrative forfeiture proceedings is limited); see also Li-\nnarez v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 2 F.3d 208, 213 (7th Cir.\n1993). The only arguments he does advance—that the govern-\nment illegally seized his property and also violated the terms\nof his plea agreement by pursuing administrative forfeiture—\nare outside the scope of our review and, in any event, appear\nto lack merit.\n A future case may require us to consider the scope and\nlimits, jurisdictional or otherwise, of a challenge to an admin-\nistrative forfeiture. Some challenges may sound in due pro-\ncess and others in statutory terms. Because these issues are\nnot before us here, their development will have to await an-\nother case.\n\fNo. 18-3424 7\n\n B\n We conclude with a few words about the procedural path\nof the administrative forfeiture the government charted here.\nThe Supreme Court has advised that “[f]orfeitures are not fa-\nvored; they should be enforced only when within both letter\nand spirit of the law.” United States v. One 1936 Model Ford V-\n8 De Luxe Coach, 307 U.S. 219, 226 (1939); see also United States\nv. Real Properties located at 7215 Longboat Drive (Lot 24),\n750 F.3d 968, 974 (8th Cir. 2014) (underscoring the same dis-\nfavor of forfeiture).\n If Martov had preserved and advanced an argument on\nappeal that the government did not provide adequate notice\nof administrative forfeiture we would have almost certainly\nconcluded that the notice was adequate. In Dusenbery v.\nUnited States, 534 U.S. 161 (2002), the FBI sent a claimant writ-\nten notice via certified mail to the jail where he was housed,\nand the Supreme Court determined that the government’s ap-\nproach was “clearly acceptable” because it was reasonably\ncalculated to reach him and inform him of the pendency of\nthe administrative forfeiture. See id. at 172–73. The govern-\nment here did even more, sending its notice of administrative\nforfeiture by certified mail to Martov in jail and to his counsel.\n But our review of the record also reveals that at several\njunctures the government fell short of adhering to the stand-\nards Congress prescribed in § 983 for implementing adminis-\ntrative forfeiture.\n For example, the government did not meet statutory dead-\nlines on several occasions. The government sent notice to\nMartov concerning the forfeiture of his car long after the man-\n\f8 No. 18-3424\n\ndated deadline for doing so had passed. Sec-\ntion 983(a)(1)(A)(i) required the government to notify Martov\nthat it was beginning forfeiture proceedings within 60 days of\nseizing the car, but the government did not send notice for\n21 months. The government also responded to Martov’s\nclaims for the car and the guns long after the 90-day deadline\nCongress prescribed in § 983(a)(3)(A). For reasons unex-\nplained by the record, it took the government five months to\nrespond to Martov’s claim for the car and six months to re-\nspond to his claim for the guns.\n By way of another example, the government never filed a\ncomplaint for forfeiture in federal court. As soon as Martov\nfiled claims for the car and guns, § 983 imposed a clear obli-\ngation on the government. “Not later than 90 days after a\nclaim has been filed, the Government shall file a complaint for\nforfeiture in the manner set forth in the Supplemental Rules\nfor Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims or return the\nproperty pending the filing of a complaint.” 18 U.S.C.\n§ 983(a)(3)(A). The government did neither here. The govern-\nment instead denied Martov’s claims, informed him that he\nhad ten days to ask the government to reconsider its decision,\nand then declared the property abandoned when he did not\ndo so. All of this was done, however, despite nothing in § 983\nsuggesting that Martov needed to request reconsideration to\ntrigger the government’s duty to either file a civil complaint\nor return the property. Also concerning is that the govern-\nment never warned Martov that his choosing not to seek re-\nconsideration would result in forfeiting the property.\n Martov did not contest the forfeiture on any of these\ngrounds in his correspondence with the government, before\nthe district court, or on appeal, and thus they offer no basis of\n\fNo. 18-3424 9\n\nrelief. See United States v. Wilson, 699 F.3d 789, 791 (4th Cir.\n2012). Nor is the point of our observations to nitpick. We offer\nthem to underscore the gravity of forfeiture and the impera-\ntive of taking care to comply with the letter and spirit of the\nprocedural requirements mandated by law. Sound process is\nimportant.\n AFFIRMED\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Gheorgui MARTOV, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-06-17\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-3424\\nGHEORGUI MARTOV,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Defendant-Appellee.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 1:18-cv-1211 — Ronald A. Guzmán, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n SUBMITTED MAY 9, 2019* — DECIDED JUNE 17, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before FLAUM, HAMILTON, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\\n PER CURIAM. The government arrested Gheorgui Martov\\nfor wire fraud and seized several items of his personal prop-\\nerty including a watch, $4,035 in cash, a car, and nine firearms.\\n\\n *We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the\\n\\nbriefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and\\noral argument would not significantly aid the court. FED. R. APP.\\nP. 34(a)(2)(C).\\n\\f2 No. 18-3424\\n\\nIn exchange for Martov’s guilty plea, the government agreed\\nnot to pursue criminal forfeiture. But the government never\\nagreed to forgo administrative forfeiture proceedings, which\\nit had already initiated by sending notice to Martov and his\\nattorney. Martov responded to the government’s notice of ad-\\nministrative forfeiture by filing claims for the car and guns.\\nThe government denied both claims and declared the prop-\\nerty forfeited.\\n Martov then brought this action in the district court, seek-\\ning the return of the property. The district court denied relief,\\nand we now affirm, as Martov has failed to advance any mer-\\nitorious arguments. In doing so, however, we note our reser-\\nvations with the procedural path that the government took in\\nexecuting the forfeiture.\\n I\\n A\\n Martov participated in a wire fraud scheme in which he\\ncollected fraudulently obtained debit card numbers and per-\\nsonal identification numbers and then distributed them to\\nothers who used the information to make cash withdrawals\\nfrom ATMs. The conduct cost the victims approximately\\n$1.2 million. The government eventually caught on, and a\\ngrand jury indicted Martov on 22 counts of wire fraud in vio-\\nlation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, four counts of money laundering in\\nviolation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(B)(i), and one count each of\\nconspiracy to commit money laundering in violation of\\n18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) and obstruction of justice in violation of\\n18 U.S.C. § 1519. The grand jury also advanced two criminal\\nforfeiture allegations totaling $250,000.\\n\\fNo. 18-3424 3\\n\\n When FBI agents arrested Martov on March 24, 2014, they\\nseized a $25,000 watch, $4,035 cash, and a 2008 Mercedes-\\nBenz. The next day, when executing a search warrant at Mar-\\ntov’s home, the agents found and seized nine firearms.\\n Martov eventually pleaded guilty to a single count of wire\\nfraud. Under the plea agreement, the government agreed to\\ndismiss the criminal forfeiture allegations (which it did) but\\nreserved the option to pursue “any administrative or judicial\\ncivil claim.” The district court sentenced Martov to seven\\nyears’ imprisonment.\\n B\\n Separate and apart from Martov’s criminal proceeding,\\nthe government initiated an administrative forfeiture pro-\\nceeding for the property that it seized during Martov’s arrest\\nand the search of his home. The applicable statute, 18 U.S.C.\\n§ 983, required the government to notify Martov of any forfei-\\nture proceedings within 60 days from the seizures, see id.\\n§ 983(a)(1)(A)(i), meaning that it had until May 23, 2014 to no-\\ntify Martov of forfeiture proceedings for the watch, cash, and\\ncar (or else return them to Martov, see § 983 (a)(1)(F)) and un-\\ntil May 24 to do the same for the firearms.\\n The government sent certified mail to Martov at his prison\\naddress and to his lawyer regarding the cash on May 16, 2014\\nand the watch on May 20, 2014. The government did the same\\nfor the car on December 23, 2015—of course, by then\\n21 months had passed since the government’s seizure of the\\ncar, a plain violation of the 60-day deadline in\\n§ 983(a)(1)(A)(i). The record does not make clear when the\\ngovernment notified Martov about the proceedings over the\\nfirearms or how it did so. The government’s notices advised\\n\\f4 No. 18-3424\\n\\nMartov that he needed to submit a claim for each piece of\\nproperty or he would forfeit his rights to it. Martov never filed\\nclaims for the watch or cash, and the government declared\\nthem forfeited.\\n But Martov did file claims for the car and guns, triggering\\ncertain statutory protections. Specifically, the government\\nhad 90 days from the date of Martov's claim to file a com-\\nplaint, as set forth in the Supplemental Rules for Certain Ad-\\nmiralty and Maritime Claims, or return the property. See 18\\nU.S.C. § 983(a)(3).\\n The government missed that deadline, waiting five\\nmonths before denying Martov’s claim for the car. And when\\ndenying his claim, the government informed Martov that he\\nhad ten days during which he “may request reconsideration.”\\nSee 41 C.F.R. § 128-48.502(e) (explaining that a request for re-\\nconsideration may be submitted within ten days from the\\ndate of the government’s letter denying a claim). When the\\nten-day deadline passed without word from Martov, the gov-\\nernment entered what it called a “Declaration of Abandon-\\nment.” The Declaration explained that “a claim for the prop-\\nerty has been received and denied” and that title to the car\\nhad vested in the United States.\\n As for the firearms, the government again missed its dead-\\nline for responding to Martov’s claim. Six months after receiv-\\ning the claim, the government finally agreed to return four of\\nthe nine to the care of Martov’s brother. On the remaining five\\nguns, the government rejected Martov’s claim and deemed\\nthem forfeited when Martov did not timely seek reconsidera-\\ntion.\\n\\fNo. 18-3424 5\\n\\n C\\n What gives rise to this appeal is Martov’s filing a motion\\nin the district court, requesting the return of his watch,\\nmoney, car, and guns. Citing Federal Rule of Criminal Proce-\\ndure 41(g) (Motion to Return Property), he argued that the\\ngovernment wrongfully seized the property during the initial\\narrest and search because none of the seized items related to\\nhis crime. He also contended that the government violated the\\nplea agreement in his criminal case by taking the property\\nthrough administrative forfeiture proceedings.\\n The district court first noted that Rule 41(g) cannot be used\\nto seek the return of property that has been administratively\\nforfeited, so Martov’s motion was improper. Moving then to\\nconsider whether Martov might otherwise be entitled to re-\\nlief, the court observed that Martov had failed to argue that\\nthe government’s notice of the administrative forfeiture pro-\\nceedings was inadequate. This failure, the district court ex-\\nplained, doomed Martov’s case because 18 U.S.C. § 983(e)\\nlimited the scope of the court’s review to whether the govern-\\nment provided adequate notice of the administrative forfei-\\nture. And in any event, the court added, Martov’s plea agree-\\nment did not entitle him to relief because the government\\nagreed to forgo only criminal, not administrative, forfeiture\\nproceedings.\\n II\\n On appeal Martov again invokes Rule 41(g) and argues\\nthat the government illegally seized his property and then vi-\\nolated the plea agreement by using the tools of administrative\\nforfeiture to take title to it.\\n\\f6 No. 18-3424\\n\\n A\\n We agree with the district court as to the inapplicability of\\nRule 41(g). The forfeiture proceedings that Martov is chal-\\nlenging are civil, and thus Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure\\n41 does not apply. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 1(a)(5)(B); United States\\nv. Sims, 376 F.3d 705, 707–08 (7th Cir. 2004).\\n The district court also properly observed that Martov\\nnever challenged the adequacy of the government’s adminis-\\ntrative forfeiture notice. He has not done so on appeal either,\\naltogether omitting any specific challenges to the govern-\\nment’s notice letters, or more generally, a due process chal-\\nlenge to the government’s conduct or the scheme it has estab-\\nlished for executing administrative forfeitures. Martov, there-\\nfore, has not offered any valid basis upon which we may grant\\nrelief. See Chairez v. United States, 355 F.3d 1099, 1101 (7th Cir.\\n2004) (explaining that the scope of a federal court’s review of\\nadministrative forfeiture proceedings is limited); see also Li-\\nnarez v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 2 F.3d 208, 213 (7th Cir.\\n1993). The only arguments he does advance—that the govern-\\nment illegally seized his property and also violated the terms\\nof his plea agreement by pursuing administrative forfeiture—\\nare outside the scope of our review and, in any event, appear\\nto lack merit.\\n A future case may require us to consider the scope and\\nlimits, jurisdictional or otherwise, of a challenge to an admin-\\nistrative forfeiture. Some challenges may sound in due pro-\\ncess and others in statutory terms. Because these issues are\\nnot before us here, their development will have to await an-\\nother case.\\n\\fNo. 18-3424 7\\n\\n B\\n We conclude with a few words about the procedural path\\nof the administrative forfeiture the government charted here.\\nThe Supreme Court has advised that “[f]orfeitures are not fa-\\nvored; they should be enforced only when within both letter\\nand spirit of the law.” United States v. One 1936 Model Ford V-\\n8 De Luxe Coach, 307 U.S. 219, 226 (1939); see also United States\\nv. Real Properties located at 7215 Longboat Drive (Lot 24),\\n750 F.3d 968, 974 (8th Cir. 2014) (underscoring the same dis-\\nfavor of forfeiture).\\n If Martov had preserved and advanced an argument on\\nappeal that the government did not provide adequate notice\\nof administrative forfeiture we would have almost certainly\\nconcluded that the notice was adequate. In Dusenbery v.\\nUnited States, 534 U.S. 161 (2002), the FBI sent a claimant writ-\\nten notice via certified mail to the jail where he was housed,\\nand the Supreme Court determined that the government’s ap-\\nproach was “clearly acceptable” because it was reasonably\\ncalculated to reach him and inform him of the pendency of\\nthe administrative forfeiture. See id. at 172–73. The govern-\\nment here did even more, sending its notice of administrative\\nforfeiture by certified mail to Martov in jail and to his counsel.\\n But our review of the record also reveals that at several\\njunctures the government fell short of adhering to the stand-\\nards Congress prescribed in § 983 for implementing adminis-\\ntrative forfeiture.\\n For example, the government did not meet statutory dead-\\nlines on several occasions. The government sent notice to\\nMartov concerning the forfeiture of his car long after the man-\\n\\f8 No. 18-3424\\n\\ndated deadline for doing so had passed. Sec-\\ntion 983(a)(1)(A)(i) required the government to notify Martov\\nthat it was beginning forfeiture proceedings within 60 days of\\nseizing the car, but the government did not send notice for\\n21 months. The government also responded to Martov’s\\nclaims for the car and the guns long after the 90-day deadline\\nCongress prescribed in § 983(a)(3)(A). For reasons unex-\\nplained by the record, it took the government five months to\\nrespond to Martov’s claim for the car and six months to re-\\nspond to his claim for the guns.\\n By way of another example, the government never filed a\\ncomplaint for forfeiture in federal court. As soon as Martov\\nfiled claims for the car and guns, § 983 imposed a clear obli-\\ngation on the government. “Not later than 90 days after a\\nclaim has been filed, the Government shall file a complaint for\\nforfeiture in the manner set forth in the Supplemental Rules\\nfor Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims or return the\\nproperty pending the filing of a complaint.” 18 U.S.C.\\n§ 983(a)(3)(A). The government did neither here. The govern-\\nment instead denied Martov’s claims, informed him that he\\nhad ten days to ask the government to reconsider its decision,\\nand then declared the property abandoned when he did not\\ndo so. All of this was done, however, despite nothing in § 983\\nsuggesting that Martov needed to request reconsideration to\\ntrigger the government’s duty to either file a civil complaint\\nor return the property. Also concerning is that the govern-\\nment never warned Martov that his choosing not to seek re-\\nconsideration would result in forfeiting the property.\\n Martov did not contest the forfeiture on any of these\\ngrounds in his correspondence with the government, before\\nthe district court, or on appeal, and thus they offer no basis of\\n\\fNo. 18-3424 9\\n\\nrelief. See United States v. Wilson, 699 F.3d 789, 791 (4th Cir.\\n2012). Nor is the point of our observations to nitpick. We offer\\nthem to underscore the gravity of forfeiture and the impera-\\ntive of taking care to comply with the letter and spirit of the\\nprocedural requirements mandated by law. Sound process is\\nimportant.\\n AFFIRMED\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2588,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4630184,"string":"4,630,184"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"John DOE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kevin K. MCALEENAN, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"John Doe v. Kevin K. McAleenan"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-06-17"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"17-3521"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Ripple, Manion, Sykes\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Diane S. Sykes\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 17-3521\\nJOHN DOE,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nKEVIN K. MCALEENAN,\\nActing Secretary of Homeland Security, et al.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 17 C 4190 — John Robert Blakey, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED MARCH 28, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 17, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before RIPPLE, MANION, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.\\n SYKES, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff John Doe, an Iranian nation-\\nal, petitioned for conditional permanent residency in 2013.\\nHe used the EB-5 admission category, which offers visas for\\nimmigrants who invest in new job-creating enterprises. The\\nUnited States Citizenship and Immigration Service (“USCIS”\\nor “agency”) initially approved Doe’s petition but revoked\\nits approval roughly two years later.\\n\\f2 No. 17-3521\\n\\n Doe sought judicial review of the agency’s actions under\\nthe Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et\\nseq. But the district court concluded that Congress had\\nstripped its jurisdiction to review discretionary revocations\\nof visa petitions and dismissed Doe’s suit. See 8 U.S.C.\\n§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).\\n We affirm. Doe relies on the narrow jurisdictional gate-\\nway offered by Musunuru v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 880 (7th Cir.\\n2016). In Musunuru we held that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) doesn’t\\npreclude judicial review of purely procedural rulings during\\nthe adjudication of a visa petition. 831 F.3d at 887–88. But the\\nruling at issue here wasn’t procedural. Doe is challenging\\nthe agency’s substantive decision-making. And he cannot\\nevade a jurisdiction-stripping statute by repackaging his\\nsubstantive complaints as procedural objections.\\n I. Background\\n Congress allocates visas under the EB-5 admission cate-\\ngory for “qualified immigrants seeking to enter the United\\nStates for the purpose of engaging in a new commercial\\nenterprise.” 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(5)(A). To qualify, an alien\\nmust show that he “has invested … or[] is actively in the\\nprocess of investing” the minimum amount of capital and\\nthat his investment “will … create full-time employment for\\nnot fewer than 10 United States citizens or aliens lawfully\\nadmitted.” Id. The default capital requirement is $1 million,\\nbut $500,000 suffices for a project located in a “targeted\\nemployment area.” Id. § 1153(b)(5)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R.\\n§ 204.6(f)(2).\\n An alien seeking an EB-5 visa must file a petition using\\nForm I-526. 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(a). If the petition is approved, he\\n\\fNo. 17-3521 3\\n\\nreceives a conditional form of permanent-resident status.\\n8 U.S.C. § 1186b(a)(1). But the USCIS “may, at any time, for\\nwhat [it] deems to be good and sufficient cause,” revoke an\\napproved I-526 petition after providing notice and an oppor-\\ntunity to respond. See id. §§ 1155, 1154(a)(1)(H); 8 C.F.R.\\n§ 205.2. The agency’s final revocation notice must be in\\nwriting and “explain[] the specific reasons for the revoca-\\ntion.” 8 C.F.R. § 205.2(c).\\n John Doe submitted his petition on June 7, 2013. Doe and\\n23 other investors each deposited $500,000 in Golden Assist-\\ned Living EB-5 Fund, LLC, a “new commercial enterprise”\\nunder 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(j)(1). The enterprise, controlled by\\nAttorney Taher Kameli, loaned the pooled $12 million to\\nGolden Memory Care, Inc., which planned to construct an\\nassisted-living center in Lake Barrington, Illinois. In August\\n2013 the USCIS issued Doe a Request for Evidence seeking\\nadditional information about the project. Doe’s response\\nnotified the agency that the project had been “moved from\\nLake Barrington, Illinois to Fox Lake, Illinois, … due to\\nseveral unforeseen issues.” He claims that he provided an\\nupdated business plan and an Illinois state agency’s letter\\ncertifying Fox Lake as a targeted employment area.\\n The USCIS approved Doe’s petition on May 8, 2014, and\\nDoe requested a visa through the United States Consulate in\\nAbu Dhabi. But in January 2015, the State Department\\nreviewed Doe’s petition and returned it to the USCIS for\\nreview and possible revocation. The USCIS issued a Notice\\nof Intent to Revoke on January 11, 2016. The agency ex-\\nplained that revocation is appropriate where “material\\nchanges … , if unexplained and unrebutted, would warrant a\\ndenial of the approved visa petition.” The notice identified\\n\\f4 No. 17-3521\\n\\ntwo material changes. First, “[s]ubsequent to approving the\\npetition, [the] USCIS discovered information that contra-\\ndict[ed] evidence in the record”—namely, that the project\\nhad moved to Fox Lake. The agency asserted that Doe hadn’t\\nprovided a business plan or targeted employment area\\ncertification for the new location. Second, the record con-\\ntained no evidence that the Fox Lake center was under\\nconstruction or would create ten jobs.\\n Doe disputed the agency’s characterization. He had al-\\nready notified the USCIS that the project had been relocated\\nto Fox Lake, so the agency couldn’t have “discovered” that\\nfact after approving his petition. Doe claimed to have pro-\\nvided each piece of evidence the USCIS said was missing: an\\nupdated business plan, a targeted employment area certifica-\\ntion, and a job-creation report. Finally, he challenged the\\nlegal basis for the agency’s “material change” standard.\\n Unmoved, the agency issued a Notice of Revocation on\\nMarch 31, 2016. But it erroneously referenced a different\\nEB-5 project, also controlled by Kameli, that had relocated\\nfrom Waukegan, Illinois to West Dundee, Illinois. Doe\\nnotified the USCIS of its error, and the agency issued a\\ncorrected document on June 7.\\n The corrected Notice of Revocation explained that Doe,\\nas petitioner, bears the burden of establishing eligibility\\nunder the EB-5 program. And a petitioner’s eligibility must\\nbe assessed based on his initial I-526 petition. So if he “as-\\nserts eligibility under a materially different set of facts that\\nwere not the basis for eligibility when the petition was filed,\\nhe or she must file a new petition.” (Emphasis added.) Here,\\nDoe’s initial petition was based on a project in Lake Barring-\\nton. The USCIS again asserted that Doe “did not provide any\\n\\fNo. 17-3521 5\\n\\nupdates to the business plan or other evidence … that re-\\nflected the change of the location.” 1 The agency acknowl-\\nedged Doe’s response to the notice, in which he provided\\nevidence supporting the Fox Lake project’s EB-5 qualifica-\\ntions. But it reiterated that “the record did not include any of\\nthat evidence … when the petition was approved.” The\\nagency determined, “based on the entire record of proceed-\\ning,” that Doe was ineligible for an EB-5 visa. The USCIS\\nadvised Doe of his right to an administrative appeal under\\n8 C.F.R. § 205.2(d).\\n Rather than appeal the revocation, Doe filed a complaint\\nin the Northern District of Illinois seeking judicial review\\nunder the APA on two grounds. First, he alleged that the\\nUSCIS committed “legal error” by citing inaccurate infor-\\nmation and denying him “a meaningful opportunity to\\nrespond” to the Notice of Intent to Revoke. Second, he\\nclaimed that the USCIS “engaged in improper substantive\\nrule-making” by using a “material change” standard that\\nhadn’t undergone notice and comment.\\n The government moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) of\\nthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that §§ 1155\\nand 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bar judicial review of the revocation.\\nDoe responded that his complaint challenged the agency’s\\ncompliance with its mandatory procedures, not the sub-\\nstance of its decision, so the court retained jurisdiction under\\nMusunuru.\\n\\n\\n1 The agency failed to delete one of its erroneous references to the\\nKameli-controlled project that had relocated from Waukegan to West\\nDundee. In fact, the March and June documents are identical aside from\\nthe town names.\\n\\f6 No. 17-3521\\n\\n The district judge granted the motion, explaining that\\n§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) precludes judicial review of a discretionary\\nrevocation of an approved visa petition. While Musunuru\\ncreates a narrow exception for purely procedural challenges,\\n“a simple review of the complaint” revealed that Doe’s\\nclaims were “not procedural but substantive.” Doe appeals,\\nagain relying on Musunuru.\\n II. Discussion\\n We review a dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdic-\\ntion de novo, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of\\nthe plaintiff. Bultasa Buddhist Temple of Chi. v. Nielsen,\\n878 F.3d 570, 573 (7th Cir. 2017).\\n Under § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii),\\n no court shall have jurisdiction to review …\\n any … decision or action of the Attorney Gen-\\n eral or the Secretary of Homeland Security the\\n authority for which is specified under this sub-\\n chapter to be in the discretion of [that official],\\n other than the granting of relief under section\\n 1158(a) of this title.\\nIn El–Khader v. Monica, we held that revocations under\\n§ 1155 are discretionary “decision[s] or action[s]” within the\\nmeaning of § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). 366 F.3d 562, 567–68 (7th Cir.\\n2004).\\n The statute’s plain language compelled that conclusion:\\nThe Secretary, acting through the USCIS, “may, at any time,\\nfor what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke\\nthe approval of any petition approved by him under section\\n1154 of this title.” § 1155. It’s hard to imagine a clearer grant\\nof discretion. The statute says the Secretary “may” revoke a\\n\\fNo. 17-3521 7\\n\\npreviously approved visa petition “at any time” and for any\\nreason he “deems to be good and sufficient cause.” This\\nlanguage commits the revocation decision to the agency’s\\nsole and unreviewable discretion; a court has no standard by\\nwhich to test “good and sufficient cause.” El–Khader,\\n366 F.3d at 567.\\n We have repeated that analysis in subsequent cases. See\\nHoly Virgin Prot. Cathedral of the Russian Orthodox Church\\nOutside Russia v. Chertoff, 499 F.3d 658, 661 (7th Cir. 2007)\\n(explaining “that decisions to revoke visas previously ap-\\nproved under § 1154 are unequivocally committed to [agen-\\ncy] discretion”). And we recently reiterated that a plaintiff\\n“cannot avoid the jurisdictional bar … simply by raising a\\nclaim under … section [706] of the APA. Regardless of the\\nunderlying merits of the decision, we do not have jurisdic-\\ntion to review a discretionary revocation under § 1155.”\\nBultasa Buddhist Temple, 878 F.3d at 574 (citation omitted).\\n The USCIS revoked Doe’s petition under § 1155. And a\\npetition for conditional permanent residency under the EB-5\\nprogram is approved “under section 1154 of this title.” See\\n§ 1154(a)(1)(H). Doe concedes as much. So under\\n§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s\\nrevocation of his I-526 petition.\\n However, jurisdiction-stripping statutes don’t prohibit\\njudicial review of every dispute between the USCIS and\\napplicants for immigration benefits. In Calma v. Holder, we\\nconsidered § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), which bars judicial review of a\\ndefined set of immigration-agency actions, including remov-\\nal proceedings. 663 F.3d 868 (7th Cir. 2011). We explained\\nthat “there are identifiable circumstances under which a\\ncritical procedural step in a removal proceeding … lies within\\n\\f8 No. 17-3521\\n\\nour jurisdiction even though we are barred from evaluating\\nthe [agency’s] ultimate decision.” Id. at 876–77 (emphasis\\nadded). But we lack jurisdiction if “it is impossible to distin-\\nguish the challenged action from the determination on the\\nmerits.” Id. at 877. In other words, “judicial review is fore-\\nclosed … if the agency’s rationale for denying the procedural\\nrequest also establishes the petitioner’s inability to prevail on\\nthe merits of his underlying claim.” Id. at 876.\\n Doe rests his entire case on Musunuru v. Lynch, in which\\nwe imported Calma’s reasoning to the § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)\\ncontext. Srinivasa Musunuru had a temporary work authori-\\nzation when he sought permanent residency. 831 F.3d at\\n882–83. His employer, Vision Systems Group, filed a visa\\npetition and labor certification on his behalf. The USCIS\\napproved both. Id. at 884. Four years later Musunuru left\\nVision Systems for Crescent Solutions, which filed a re-\\nplacement petition. The agency approved that petition too.\\nBut when Vision Systems’ principals pleaded guilty to\\nunlawfully hiring aliens, the USCIS revoked the company’s\\nlabor certifications—including Musunuru’s. Id. at 885. The\\nagency mailed a Notice of Intent to Revoke to the defunct\\ncompany, so Musunuru never saw it. When Vision Systems\\ndidn’t respond, the agency notified Crescent Solutions that\\n“Musunuru’s work experience with [Vision Systems] was\\nnot genuine[,] and therefore the approval of Crescent Solu-\\ntions’ [visa] petition … should be revoked.” Id.\\n Musunuru submitted rebuttal evidence but the agency\\ndenied his visa petition. He moved for reconsideration,\\narguing that he should have received notice and an oppor-\\ntunity to respond to the notice mailed to Vision Systems. The\\nUSCIS concluded that Musunuru lacked standing to bring\\n\\fNo. 17-3521 9\\n\\nthat challenge because as the beneficiary of the petition, rather\\nthan the petitioner himself, he was not an “affected party”\\nentitled to notice under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(iii)(B).\\nMusunuru brought an APA suit. The USCIS argued that\\n§§ 1155 and 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) precluded judicial review. The\\ndistrict court found jurisdiction but dismissed the suit on the\\nmerits.\\n The agency repeated its jurisdictional argument on ap-\\npeal. Relying on Calma, we rejected it:\\n [The] USCIS’s rationale for denying Musunuru\\n these procedures was that he is not the peti-\\n tioner. That rationale, by itself, does not pre-\\n vent Musunuru from prevailing on the merits\\n of his underlying claim, which is that the I-140\\n petition filed on his behalf by [Vision Systems]\\n was not fraudulent and should not have been\\n revoked. Therefore, judicial review is not fore-\\n closed. In other words, [the] USCIS’s rationale\\n concerns only the regulatory procedures and\\n not the merits of its decision to revoke the peti-\\n tion. Musunuru does indeed contend that he\\n can prevail on the merits of his underlying\\n claim … , but we are not reviewing that con-\\n tention. On the contrary, we are reviewing\\n [the] USCIS’s decision to deny him the oppor-\\n tunity to challenge the revocation. Ergo, we\\n have jurisdiction to review Musunuru’s claims.\\nMusunuru, 831 F.3d at 887–88. Two other circuits reached\\nsimilar conclusions when confronting this specific procedur-\\nal issue. See Mantena v. Johnson, 809 F.3d 721, 729 (2d Cir.\\n\\f10 No. 17-3521\\n\\n2015); Kurapati v. U.S. Bureau of Citizenship & Immigration\\nServs., 775 F.3d 1255, 1262 (11th Cir. 2014).\\n In sum, we’ve recognized a narrow jurisdictional path for\\nchallenging purely procedural rulings. In Calma we asserted\\njurisdiction over discrete “procedural step[s].” 663 F.3d at\\n877 (citing as examples “the denial of a continuance … , the\\ndenial of a motion to reconsider, a refusal to remand, or a\\nrefusal to reopen a case”). So we can review the immigration\\nagency’s resolution of a specific procedural dispute during\\nan administrative adjudication. See Musunuru, 831 F.3d at\\n888. But even then we lack jurisdiction if the rationale under-\\nlying the agency’s procedural ruling would also resolve the\\nmerits of the petitioner’s application. Id. at 887 (quoting\\nCalma, 663 F.3d at 876).\\n Calma and Musunuru do not, however, open the door to\\nchallenging discretionary revocations on nominally “proce-\\ndural” grounds. Courts may review identifiable procedural\\nrulings that don’t implicate a petition’s merits. But a plaintiff\\ncannot sidestep § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) by artfully framing a\\nchallenge to the agency’s substantive decision as a proce-\\ndural claim. Imagine the USCIS asks a visa applicant to\\nverify a fact supporting his EB-5 petition. The applicant\\nresponds with a self-prepared affidavit. Unconvinced, the\\nagency revokes the petition anyway. The alien might frame\\nan APA complaint in “procedural” terms, alleging that the\\nUSCIS violated its own regulations by failing to consider his\\naffidavit. But at bottom that’s a substantive challenge to the\\nagency’s weighing of the evidence, which Congress has\\nimmunized from judicial scrutiny.\\n Doe alleges that the USCIS violated several regulations\\ngoverning the revocation process. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 205.2(b)–\\n\\fNo. 17-3521 11\\n\\n(c), 103.2(b)(16)(i). He also cites a pair of agency opinions\\nrestating the regulatory language. See In re Arias, 19 I. & N.\\nDec. 568 (BIA 1988); In re Estime, 19 I. & N. Dec. 450 (BIA\\n1987). The regulations address the basic notice-and-response\\nrequirements that the USCIS must follow when deciding\\nwhether to revoke a visa petition. Everyone agrees that the\\nagency formally complied with those regulations. It gave\\nDoe an opportunity to rebut the Notice of Intent to Revoke,\\nand it provided a written explanation of its reasoning in the\\nNotice of Revocation.\\n Doe concedes that the USCIS followed this procedural\\nframework. He maintains that his opportunity for response\\nwas an empty formality: by incorrectly stating the facts and\\nthe law, the agency denied him a “legitimate opportunity to\\nchallenge” the revocation. He also argues that the language\\nused in the Notice of Intent to Revoke and Notice of Revoca-\\ntion betrays underlying procedural violations. As he sees it,\\neven a facial review of the agency’s papers would reveal that\\nthe USCIS disregarded its own procedures.\\n But § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars us from combing the substance\\nof the agency’s decision in search of a lurking procedural\\nviolation. To overcome the jurisdictional bar, Doe has re-\\npackaged a set of substantive complaints about the merits of\\nthe agency’s action as a set of procedural violations. Unlike\\nin Musunuru where the USCIS denied the petitioner “the\\nopportunity to challenge the revocation,” the agency did not\\n“deny[] [Doe] … procedures,” such as notice, an opportunity\\nto respond, or an administrative appeal. See 831 F.3d at 887–\\n88 (emphasis added). Nor did it make an identifiable proce-\\ndural ruling that might arguably qualify for review under\\nMusunuru. The USCIS simply evaluated the “entire record of\\n\\f12 No. 17-3521\\n\\nproceeding” in Doe’s case and revoked his petition for what\\nit deemed “good and sufficient cause.”\\n For all his “procedural” framing, what Doe really wants is\\njudicial review of the revocation under the APA’s arbitrary-\\nand-capricious standard. See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). Indeed, his\\narguments mirror the factors we consider when applying\\nthat standard of review. See Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S.,\\nInc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)\\n(examining whether the agency “offered an explanation …\\nthat runs counter to the evidence … or is so implausible that\\nit could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product\\nof agency expertise”). We’ve already established that courts\\ncannot use that standard to evaluate discretionary revoca-\\ntions under § 1155. See Bultasa Buddhist Temple, 878 F.3d at\\n574 (citing El–Khader, 366 F.3d at 565).\\n Taken to its logical conclusion, Doe’s approach would\\neviscerate § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). Any petitioner dissatisfied with\\na final agency decision could secure judicial review by\\nalleging that the agency committed a procedural violation by\\noverlooking favorable evidence. Musunuru doesn’t stand for\\nthat proposition, and we won’t adopt it here. Doe’s com-\\nplaint challenges the agency’s substantive decision-making,\\nnot its application of a procedural rule during administrative\\nadjudication. Merely citing the Code of Federal Regulations\\ndoesn’t convert a substantive challenge into a procedural\\none. The district court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is\\n AFFIRMED.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4407437/\", \"author_raw\": \"Diane S. Sykes\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"RIPPLE"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"MANION"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"SYKES"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4630184/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":6,"string":"6"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: John DOE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kevin K. MCALEENAN, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-06-17\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 17-3521\nJOHN DOE,\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\n v.\n\nKEVIN K. MCALEENAN,\nActing Secretary of Homeland Security, et al.,\n Defendants-Appellees.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 17 C 4190 — John Robert Blakey, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED MARCH 28, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 17, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before RIPPLE, MANION, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.\n SYKES, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff John Doe, an Iranian nation-\nal, petitioned for conditional permanent residency in 2013.\nHe used the EB-5 admission category, which offers visas for\nimmigrants who invest in new job-creating enterprises. The\nUnited States Citizenship and Immigration Service (“USCIS”\nor “agency”) initially approved Doe’s petition but revoked\nits approval roughly two years later.\n\f2 No. 17-3521\n\n Doe sought judicial review of the agency’s actions under\nthe Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et\nseq. But the district court concluded that Congress had\nstripped its jurisdiction to review discretionary revocations\nof visa petitions and dismissed Doe’s suit. See 8 U.S.C.\n§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).\n We affirm. Doe relies on the narrow jurisdictional gate-\nway offered by Musunuru v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 880 (7th Cir.\n2016). In Musunuru we held that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) doesn’t\npreclude judicial review of purely procedural rulings during\nthe adjudication of a visa petition. 831 F.3d at 887–88. But the\nruling at issue here wasn’t procedural. Doe is challenging\nthe agency’s substantive decision-making. And he cannot\nevade a jurisdiction-stripping statute by repackaging his\nsubstantive complaints as procedural objections.\n I. Background\n Congress allocates visas under the EB-5 admission cate-\ngory for “qualified immigrants seeking to enter the United\nStates for the purpose of engaging in a new commercial\nenterprise.” 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(5)(A). To qualify, an alien\nmust show that he “has invested … or[] is actively in the\nprocess of investing” the minimum amount of capital and\nthat his investment “will … create full-time employment for\nnot fewer than 10 United States citizens or aliens lawfully\nadmitted.” Id. The default capital requirement is $1 million,\nbut $500,000 suffices for a project located in a “targeted\nemployment area.” Id. § 1153(b)(5)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R.\n§ 204.6(f)(2).\n An alien seeking an EB-5 visa must file a petition using\nForm I-526. 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(a). If the petition is approved, he\n\fNo. 17-3521 3\n\nreceives a conditional form of permanent-resident status.\n8 U.S.C. § 1186b(a)(1). But the USCIS “may, at any time, for\nwhat [it] deems to be good and sufficient cause,” revoke an\napproved I-526 petition after providing notice and an oppor-\ntunity to respond. See id. §§ 1155, 1154(a)(1)(H); 8 C.F.R.\n§ 205.2. The agency’s final revocation notice must be in\nwriting and “explain[] the specific reasons for the revoca-\ntion.” 8 C.F.R. § 205.2(c).\n John Doe submitted his petition on June 7, 2013. Doe and\n23 other investors each deposited $500,000 in Golden Assist-\ned Living EB-5 Fund, LLC, a “new commercial enterprise”\nunder 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(j)(1). The enterprise, controlled by\nAttorney Taher Kameli, loaned the pooled $12 million to\nGolden Memory Care, Inc., which planned to construct an\nassisted-living center in Lake Barrington, Illinois. In August\n2013 the USCIS issued Doe a Request for Evidence seeking\nadditional information about the project. Doe’s response\nnotified the agency that the project had been “moved from\nLake Barrington, Illinois to Fox Lake, Illinois, … due to\nseveral unforeseen issues.” He claims that he provided an\nupdated business plan and an Illinois state agency’s letter\ncertifying Fox Lake as a targeted employment area.\n The USCIS approved Doe’s petition on May 8, 2014, and\nDoe requested a visa through the United States Consulate in\nAbu Dhabi. But in January 2015, the State Department\nreviewed Doe’s petition and returned it to the USCIS for\nreview and possible revocation. The USCIS issued a Notice\nof Intent to Revoke on January 11, 2016. The agency ex-\nplained that revocation is appropriate where “material\nchanges … , if unexplained and unrebutted, would warrant a\ndenial of the approved visa petition.” The notice identified\n\f4 No. 17-3521\n\ntwo material changes. First, “[s]ubsequent to approving the\npetition, [the] USCIS discovered information that contra-\ndict[ed] evidence in the record”—namely, that the project\nhad moved to Fox Lake. The agency asserted that Doe hadn’t\nprovided a business plan or targeted employment area\ncertification for the new location. Second, the record con-\ntained no evidence that the Fox Lake center was under\nconstruction or would create ten jobs.\n Doe disputed the agency’s characterization. He had al-\nready notified the USCIS that the project had been relocated\nto Fox Lake, so the agency couldn’t have “discovered” that\nfact after approving his petition. Doe claimed to have pro-\nvided each piece of evidence the USCIS said was missing: an\nupdated business plan, a targeted employment area certifica-\ntion, and a job-creation report. Finally, he challenged the\nlegal basis for the agency’s “material change” standard.\n Unmoved, the agency issued a Notice of Revocation on\nMarch 31, 2016. But it erroneously referenced a different\nEB-5 project, also controlled by Kameli, that had relocated\nfrom Waukegan, Illinois to West Dundee, Illinois. Doe\nnotified the USCIS of its error, and the agency issued a\ncorrected document on June 7.\n The corrected Notice of Revocation explained that Doe,\nas petitioner, bears the burden of establishing eligibility\nunder the EB-5 program. And a petitioner’s eligibility must\nbe assessed based on his initial I-526 petition. So if he “as-\nserts eligibility under a materially different set of facts that\nwere not the basis for eligibility when the petition was filed,\nhe or she must file a new petition.” (Emphasis added.) Here,\nDoe’s initial petition was based on a project in Lake Barring-\nton. The USCIS again asserted that Doe “did not provide any\n\fNo. 17-3521 5\n\nupdates to the business plan or other evidence … that re-\nflected the change of the location.” 1 The agency acknowl-\nedged Doe’s response to the notice, in which he provided\nevidence supporting the Fox Lake project’s EB-5 qualifica-\ntions. But it reiterated that “the record did not include any of\nthat evidence … when the petition was approved.” The\nagency determined, “based on the entire record of proceed-\ning,” that Doe was ineligible for an EB-5 visa. The USCIS\nadvised Doe of his right to an administrative appeal under\n8 C.F.R. § 205.2(d).\n Rather than appeal the revocation, Doe filed a complaint\nin the Northern District of Illinois seeking judicial review\nunder the APA on two grounds. First, he alleged that the\nUSCIS committed “legal error” by citing inaccurate infor-\nmation and denying him “a meaningful opportunity to\nrespond” to the Notice of Intent to Revoke. Second, he\nclaimed that the USCIS “engaged in improper substantive\nrule-making” by using a “material change” standard that\nhadn’t undergone notice and comment.\n The government moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) of\nthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that §§ 1155\nand 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bar judicial review of the revocation.\nDoe responded that his complaint challenged the agency’s\ncompliance with its mandatory procedures, not the sub-\nstance of its decision, so the court retained jurisdiction under\nMusunuru.\n\n\n1 The agency failed to delete one of its erroneous references to the\nKameli-controlled project that had relocated from Waukegan to West\nDundee. In fact, the March and June documents are identical aside from\nthe town names.\n\f6 No. 17-3521\n\n The district judge granted the motion, explaining that\n§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) precludes judicial review of a discretionary\nrevocation of an approved visa petition. While Musunuru\ncreates a narrow exception for purely procedural challenges,\n“a simple review of the complaint” revealed that Doe’s\nclaims were “not procedural but substantive.” Doe appeals,\nagain relying on Musunuru.\n II. Discussion\n We review a dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdic-\ntion de novo, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of\nthe plaintiff. Bultasa Buddhist Temple of Chi. v. Nielsen,\n878 F.3d 570, 573 (7th Cir. 2017).\n Under § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii),\n no court shall have jurisdiction to review …\n any … decision or action of the Attorney Gen-\n eral or the Secretary of Homeland Security the\n authority for which is specified under this sub-\n chapter to be in the discretion of [that official],\n other than the granting of relief under section\n 1158(a) of this title.\nIn El–Khader v. Monica, we held that revocations under\n§ 1155 are discretionary “decision[s] or action[s]” within the\nmeaning of § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). 366 F.3d 562, 567–68 (7th Cir.\n2004).\n The statute’s plain language compelled that conclusion:\nThe Secretary, acting through the USCIS, “may, at any time,\nfor what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke\nthe approval of any petition approved by him under section\n1154 of this title.” § 1155. It’s hard to imagine a clearer grant\nof discretion. The statute says the Secretary “may” revoke a\n\fNo. 17-3521 7\n\npreviously approved visa petition “at any time” and for any\nreason he “deems to be good and sufficient cause.” This\nlanguage commits the revocation decision to the agency’s\nsole and unreviewable discretion; a court has no standard by\nwhich to test “good and sufficient cause.” El–Khader,\n366 F.3d at 567.\n We have repeated that analysis in subsequent cases. See\nHoly Virgin Prot. Cathedral of the Russian Orthodox Church\nOutside Russia v. Chertoff, 499 F.3d 658, 661 (7th Cir. 2007)\n(explaining “that decisions to revoke visas previously ap-\nproved under § 1154 are unequivocally committed to [agen-\ncy] discretion”). And we recently reiterated that a plaintiff\n“cannot avoid the jurisdictional bar … simply by raising a\nclaim under … section [706] of the APA. Regardless of the\nunderlying merits of the decision, we do not have jurisdic-\ntion to review a discretionary revocation under § 1155.”\nBultasa Buddhist Temple, 878 F.3d at 574 (citation omitted).\n The USCIS revoked Doe’s petition under § 1155. And a\npetition for conditional permanent residency under the EB-5\nprogram is approved “under section 1154 of this title.” See\n§ 1154(a)(1)(H). Doe concedes as much. So under\n§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s\nrevocation of his I-526 petition.\n However, jurisdiction-stripping statutes don’t prohibit\njudicial review of every dispute between the USCIS and\napplicants for immigration benefits. In Calma v. Holder, we\nconsidered § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), which bars judicial review of a\ndefined set of immigration-agency actions, including remov-\nal proceedings. 663 F.3d 868 (7th Cir. 2011). We explained\nthat “there are identifiable circumstances under which a\ncritical procedural step in a removal proceeding … lies within\n\f8 No. 17-3521\n\nour jurisdiction even though we are barred from evaluating\nthe [agency’s] ultimate decision.” Id. at 876–77 (emphasis\nadded). But we lack jurisdiction if “it is impossible to distin-\nguish the challenged action from the determination on the\nmerits.” Id. at 877. In other words, “judicial review is fore-\nclosed … if the agency’s rationale for denying the procedural\nrequest also establishes the petitioner’s inability to prevail on\nthe merits of his underlying claim.” Id. at 876.\n Doe rests his entire case on Musunuru v. Lynch, in which\nwe imported Calma’s reasoning to the § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)\ncontext. Srinivasa Musunuru had a temporary work authori-\nzation when he sought permanent residency. 831 F.3d at\n882–83. His employer, Vision Systems Group, filed a visa\npetition and labor certification on his behalf. The USCIS\napproved both. Id. at 884. Four years later Musunuru left\nVision Systems for Crescent Solutions, which filed a re-\nplacement petition. The agency approved that petition too.\nBut when Vision Systems’ principals pleaded guilty to\nunlawfully hiring aliens, the USCIS revoked the company’s\nlabor certifications—including Musunuru’s. Id. at 885. The\nagency mailed a Notice of Intent to Revoke to the defunct\ncompany, so Musunuru never saw it. When Vision Systems\ndidn’t respond, the agency notified Crescent Solutions that\n“Musunuru’s work experience with [Vision Systems] was\nnot genuine[,] and therefore the approval of Crescent Solu-\ntions’ [visa] petition … should be revoked.” Id.\n Musunuru submitted rebuttal evidence but the agency\ndenied his visa petition. He moved for reconsideration,\narguing that he should have received notice and an oppor-\ntunity to respond to the notice mailed to Vision Systems. The\nUSCIS concluded that Musunuru lacked standing to bring\n\fNo. 17-3521 9\n\nthat challenge because as the beneficiary of the petition, rather\nthan the petitioner himself, he was not an “affected party”\nentitled to notice under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(iii)(B).\nMusunuru brought an APA suit. The USCIS argued that\n§§ 1155 and 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) precluded judicial review. The\ndistrict court found jurisdiction but dismissed the suit on the\nmerits.\n The agency repeated its jurisdictional argument on ap-\npeal. Relying on Calma, we rejected it:\n [The] USCIS’s rationale for denying Musunuru\n these procedures was that he is not the peti-\n tioner. That rationale, by itself, does not pre-\n vent Musunuru from prevailing on the merits\n of his underlying claim, which is that the I-140\n petition filed on his behalf by [Vision Systems]\n was not fraudulent and should not have been\n revoked. Therefore, judicial review is not fore-\n closed. In other words, [the] USCIS’s rationale\n concerns only the regulatory procedures and\n not the merits of its decision to revoke the peti-\n tion. Musunuru does indeed contend that he\n can prevail on the merits of his underlying\n claim … , but we are not reviewing that con-\n tention. On the contrary, we are reviewing\n [the] USCIS’s decision to deny him the oppor-\n tunity to challenge the revocation. Ergo, we\n have jurisdiction to review Musunuru’s claims.\nMusunuru, 831 F.3d at 887–88. Two other circuits reached\nsimilar conclusions when confronting this specific procedur-\nal issue. See Mantena v. Johnson, 809 F.3d 721, 729 (2d Cir.\n\f10 No. 17-3521\n\n2015); Kurapati v. U.S. Bureau of Citizenship & Immigration\nServs., 775 F.3d 1255, 1262 (11th Cir. 2014).\n In sum, we’ve recognized a narrow jurisdictional path for\nchallenging purely procedural rulings. In Calma we asserted\njurisdiction over discrete “procedural step[s].” 663 F.3d at\n877 (citing as examples “the denial of a continuance … , the\ndenial of a motion to reconsider, a refusal to remand, or a\nrefusal to reopen a case”). So we can review the immigration\nagency’s resolution of a specific procedural dispute during\nan administrative adjudication. See Musunuru, 831 F.3d at\n888. But even then we lack jurisdiction if the rationale under-\nlying the agency’s procedural ruling would also resolve the\nmerits of the petitioner’s application. Id. at 887 (quoting\nCalma, 663 F.3d at 876).\n Calma and Musunuru do not, however, open the door to\nchallenging discretionary revocations on nominally “proce-\ndural” grounds. Courts may review identifiable procedural\nrulings that don’t implicate a petition’s merits. But a plaintiff\ncannot sidestep § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) by artfully framing a\nchallenge to the agency’s substantive decision as a proce-\ndural claim. Imagine the USCIS asks a visa applicant to\nverify a fact supporting his EB-5 petition. The applicant\nresponds with a self-prepared affidavit. Unconvinced, the\nagency revokes the petition anyway. The alien might frame\nan APA complaint in “procedural” terms, alleging that the\nUSCIS violated its own regulations by failing to consider his\naffidavit. But at bottom that’s a substantive challenge to the\nagency’s weighing of the evidence, which Congress has\nimmunized from judicial scrutiny.\n Doe alleges that the USCIS violated several regulations\ngoverning the revocation process. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 205.2(b)–\n\fNo. 17-3521 11\n\n(c), 103.2(b)(16)(i). He also cites a pair of agency opinions\nrestating the regulatory language. See In re Arias, 19 I. & N.\nDec. 568 (BIA 1988); In re Estime, 19 I. & N. Dec. 450 (BIA\n1987). The regulations address the basic notice-and-response\nrequirements that the USCIS must follow when deciding\nwhether to revoke a visa petition. Everyone agrees that the\nagency formally complied with those regulations. It gave\nDoe an opportunity to rebut the Notice of Intent to Revoke,\nand it provided a written explanation of its reasoning in the\nNotice of Revocation.\n Doe concedes that the USCIS followed this procedural\nframework. He maintains that his opportunity for response\nwas an empty formality: by incorrectly stating the facts and\nthe law, the agency denied him a “legitimate opportunity to\nchallenge” the revocation. He also argues that the language\nused in the Notice of Intent to Revoke and Notice of Revoca-\ntion betrays underlying procedural violations. As he sees it,\neven a facial review of the agency’s papers would reveal that\nthe USCIS disregarded its own procedures.\n But § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars us from combing the substance\nof the agency’s decision in search of a lurking procedural\nviolation. To overcome the jurisdictional bar, Doe has re-\npackaged a set of substantive complaints about the merits of\nthe agency’s action as a set of procedural violations. Unlike\nin Musunuru where the USCIS denied the petitioner “the\nopportunity to challenge the revocation,” the agency did not\n“deny[] [Doe] … procedures,” such as notice, an opportunity\nto respond, or an administrative appeal. See 831 F.3d at 887–\n88 (emphasis added). Nor did it make an identifiable proce-\ndural ruling that might arguably qualify for review under\nMusunuru. The USCIS simply evaluated the “entire record of\n\f12 No. 17-3521\n\nproceeding” in Doe’s case and revoked his petition for what\nit deemed “good and sufficient cause.”\n For all his “procedural” framing, what Doe really wants is\njudicial review of the revocation under the APA’s arbitrary-\nand-capricious standard. See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). Indeed, his\narguments mirror the factors we consider when applying\nthat standard of review. See Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S.,\nInc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)\n(examining whether the agency “offered an explanation …\nthat runs counter to the evidence … or is so implausible that\nit could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product\nof agency expertise”). We’ve already established that courts\ncannot use that standard to evaluate discretionary revoca-\ntions under § 1155. See Bultasa Buddhist Temple, 878 F.3d at\n574 (citing El–Khader, 366 F.3d at 565).\n Taken to its logical conclusion, Doe’s approach would\neviscerate § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). Any petitioner dissatisfied with\na final agency decision could secure judicial review by\nalleging that the agency committed a procedural violation by\noverlooking favorable evidence. Musunuru doesn’t stand for\nthat proposition, and we won’t adopt it here. Doe’s com-\nplaint challenges the agency’s substantive decision-making,\nnot its application of a procedural rule during administrative\nadjudication. Merely citing the Code of Federal Regulations\ndoesn’t convert a substantive challenge into a procedural\none. The district court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is\n AFFIRMED.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: John DOE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kevin K. MCALEENAN, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-06-17\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 17-3521\\nJOHN DOE,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nKEVIN K. MCALEENAN,\\nActing Secretary of Homeland Security, et al.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 17 C 4190 — John Robert Blakey, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED MARCH 28, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 17, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before RIPPLE, MANION, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.\\n SYKES, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff John Doe, an Iranian nation-\\nal, petitioned for conditional permanent residency in 2013.\\nHe used the EB-5 admission category, which offers visas for\\nimmigrants who invest in new job-creating enterprises. The\\nUnited States Citizenship and Immigration Service (“USCIS”\\nor “agency”) initially approved Doe’s petition but revoked\\nits approval roughly two years later.\\n\\f2 No. 17-3521\\n\\n Doe sought judicial review of the agency’s actions under\\nthe Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et\\nseq. But the district court concluded that Congress had\\nstripped its jurisdiction to review discretionary revocations\\nof visa petitions and dismissed Doe’s suit. See 8 U.S.C.\\n§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).\\n We affirm. Doe relies on the narrow jurisdictional gate-\\nway offered by Musunuru v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 880 (7th Cir.\\n2016). In Musunuru we held that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) doesn’t\\npreclude judicial review of purely procedural rulings during\\nthe adjudication of a visa petition. 831 F.3d at 887–88. But the\\nruling at issue here wasn’t procedural. Doe is challenging\\nthe agency’s substantive decision-making. And he cannot\\nevade a jurisdiction-stripping statute by repackaging his\\nsubstantive complaints as procedural objections.\\n I. Background\\n Congress allocates visas under the EB-5 admission cate-\\ngory for “qualified immigrants seeking to enter the United\\nStates for the purpose of engaging in a new commercial\\nenterprise.” 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(5)(A). To qualify, an alien\\nmust show that he “has invested … or[] is actively in the\\nprocess of investing” the minimum amount of capital and\\nthat his investment “will … create full-time employment for\\nnot fewer than 10 United States citizens or aliens lawfully\\nadmitted.” Id. The default capital requirement is $1 million,\\nbut $500,000 suffices for a project located in a “targeted\\nemployment area.” Id. § 1153(b)(5)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R.\\n§ 204.6(f)(2).\\n An alien seeking an EB-5 visa must file a petition using\\nForm I-526. 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(a). If the petition is approved, he\\n\\fNo. 17-3521 3\\n\\nreceives a conditional form of permanent-resident status.\\n8 U.S.C. § 1186b(a)(1). But the USCIS “may, at any time, for\\nwhat [it] deems to be good and sufficient cause,” revoke an\\napproved I-526 petition after providing notice and an oppor-\\ntunity to respond. See id. §§ 1155, 1154(a)(1)(H); 8 C.F.R.\\n§ 205.2. The agency’s final revocation notice must be in\\nwriting and “explain[] the specific reasons for the revoca-\\ntion.” 8 C.F.R. § 205.2(c).\\n John Doe submitted his petition on June 7, 2013. Doe and\\n23 other investors each deposited $500,000 in Golden Assist-\\ned Living EB-5 Fund, LLC, a “new commercial enterprise”\\nunder 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(j)(1). The enterprise, controlled by\\nAttorney Taher Kameli, loaned the pooled $12 million to\\nGolden Memory Care, Inc., which planned to construct an\\nassisted-living center in Lake Barrington, Illinois. In August\\n2013 the USCIS issued Doe a Request for Evidence seeking\\nadditional information about the project. Doe’s response\\nnotified the agency that the project had been “moved from\\nLake Barrington, Illinois to Fox Lake, Illinois, … due to\\nseveral unforeseen issues.” He claims that he provided an\\nupdated business plan and an Illinois state agency’s letter\\ncertifying Fox Lake as a targeted employment area.\\n The USCIS approved Doe’s petition on May 8, 2014, and\\nDoe requested a visa through the United States Consulate in\\nAbu Dhabi. But in January 2015, the State Department\\nreviewed Doe’s petition and returned it to the USCIS for\\nreview and possible revocation. The USCIS issued a Notice\\nof Intent to Revoke on January 11, 2016. The agency ex-\\nplained that revocation is appropriate where “material\\nchanges … , if unexplained and unrebutted, would warrant a\\ndenial of the approved visa petition.” The notice identified\\n\\f4 No. 17-3521\\n\\ntwo material changes. First, “[s]ubsequent to approving the\\npetition, [the] USCIS discovered information that contra-\\ndict[ed] evidence in the record”—namely, that the project\\nhad moved to Fox Lake. The agency asserted that Doe hadn’t\\nprovided a business plan or targeted employment area\\ncertification for the new location. Second, the record con-\\ntained no evidence that the Fox Lake center was under\\nconstruction or would create ten jobs.\\n Doe disputed the agency’s characterization. He had al-\\nready notified the USCIS that the project had been relocated\\nto Fox Lake, so the agency couldn’t have “discovered” that\\nfact after approving his petition. Doe claimed to have pro-\\nvided each piece of evidence the USCIS said was missing: an\\nupdated business plan, a targeted employment area certifica-\\ntion, and a job-creation report. Finally, he challenged the\\nlegal basis for the agency’s “material change” standard.\\n Unmoved, the agency issued a Notice of Revocation on\\nMarch 31, 2016. But it erroneously referenced a different\\nEB-5 project, also controlled by Kameli, that had relocated\\nfrom Waukegan, Illinois to West Dundee, Illinois. Doe\\nnotified the USCIS of its error, and the agency issued a\\ncorrected document on June 7.\\n The corrected Notice of Revocation explained that Doe,\\nas petitioner, bears the burden of establishing eligibility\\nunder the EB-5 program. And a petitioner’s eligibility must\\nbe assessed based on his initial I-526 petition. So if he “as-\\nserts eligibility under a materially different set of facts that\\nwere not the basis for eligibility when the petition was filed,\\nhe or she must file a new petition.” (Emphasis added.) Here,\\nDoe’s initial petition was based on a project in Lake Barring-\\nton. The USCIS again asserted that Doe “did not provide any\\n\\fNo. 17-3521 5\\n\\nupdates to the business plan or other evidence … that re-\\nflected the change of the location.” 1 The agency acknowl-\\nedged Doe’s response to the notice, in which he provided\\nevidence supporting the Fox Lake project’s EB-5 qualifica-\\ntions. But it reiterated that “the record did not include any of\\nthat evidence … when the petition was approved.” The\\nagency determined, “based on the entire record of proceed-\\ning,” that Doe was ineligible for an EB-5 visa. The USCIS\\nadvised Doe of his right to an administrative appeal under\\n8 C.F.R. § 205.2(d).\\n Rather than appeal the revocation, Doe filed a complaint\\nin the Northern District of Illinois seeking judicial review\\nunder the APA on two grounds. First, he alleged that the\\nUSCIS committed “legal error” by citing inaccurate infor-\\nmation and denying him “a meaningful opportunity to\\nrespond” to the Notice of Intent to Revoke. Second, he\\nclaimed that the USCIS “engaged in improper substantive\\nrule-making” by using a “material change” standard that\\nhadn’t undergone notice and comment.\\n The government moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) of\\nthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that §§ 1155\\nand 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bar judicial review of the revocation.\\nDoe responded that his complaint challenged the agency’s\\ncompliance with its mandatory procedures, not the sub-\\nstance of its decision, so the court retained jurisdiction under\\nMusunuru.\\n\\n\\n1 The agency failed to delete one of its erroneous references to the\\nKameli-controlled project that had relocated from Waukegan to West\\nDundee. In fact, the March and June documents are identical aside from\\nthe town names.\\n\\f6 No. 17-3521\\n\\n The district judge granted the motion, explaining that\\n§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) precludes judicial review of a discretionary\\nrevocation of an approved visa petition. While Musunuru\\ncreates a narrow exception for purely procedural challenges,\\n“a simple review of the complaint” revealed that Doe’s\\nclaims were “not procedural but substantive.” Doe appeals,\\nagain relying on Musunuru.\\n II. Discussion\\n We review a dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdic-\\ntion de novo, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of\\nthe plaintiff. Bultasa Buddhist Temple of Chi. v. Nielsen,\\n878 F.3d 570, 573 (7th Cir. 2017).\\n Under § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii),\\n no court shall have jurisdiction to review …\\n any … decision or action of the Attorney Gen-\\n eral or the Secretary of Homeland Security the\\n authority for which is specified under this sub-\\n chapter to be in the discretion of [that official],\\n other than the granting of relief under section\\n 1158(a) of this title.\\nIn El–Khader v. Monica, we held that revocations under\\n§ 1155 are discretionary “decision[s] or action[s]” within the\\nmeaning of § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). 366 F.3d 562, 567–68 (7th Cir.\\n2004).\\n The statute’s plain language compelled that conclusion:\\nThe Secretary, acting through the USCIS, “may, at any time,\\nfor what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke\\nthe approval of any petition approved by him under section\\n1154 of this title.” § 1155. It’s hard to imagine a clearer grant\\nof discretion. The statute says the Secretary “may” revoke a\\n\\fNo. 17-3521 7\\n\\npreviously approved visa petition “at any time” and for any\\nreason he “deems to be good and sufficient cause.” This\\nlanguage commits the revocation decision to the agency’s\\nsole and unreviewable discretion; a court has no standard by\\nwhich to test “good and sufficient cause.” El–Khader,\\n366 F.3d at 567.\\n We have repeated that analysis in subsequent cases. See\\nHoly Virgin Prot. Cathedral of the Russian Orthodox Church\\nOutside Russia v. Chertoff, 499 F.3d 658, 661 (7th Cir. 2007)\\n(explaining “that decisions to revoke visas previously ap-\\nproved under § 1154 are unequivocally committed to [agen-\\ncy] discretion”). And we recently reiterated that a plaintiff\\n“cannot avoid the jurisdictional bar … simply by raising a\\nclaim under … section [706] of the APA. Regardless of the\\nunderlying merits of the decision, we do not have jurisdic-\\ntion to review a discretionary revocation under § 1155.”\\nBultasa Buddhist Temple, 878 F.3d at 574 (citation omitted).\\n The USCIS revoked Doe’s petition under § 1155. And a\\npetition for conditional permanent residency under the EB-5\\nprogram is approved “under section 1154 of this title.” See\\n§ 1154(a)(1)(H). Doe concedes as much. So under\\n§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s\\nrevocation of his I-526 petition.\\n However, jurisdiction-stripping statutes don’t prohibit\\njudicial review of every dispute between the USCIS and\\napplicants for immigration benefits. In Calma v. Holder, we\\nconsidered § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), which bars judicial review of a\\ndefined set of immigration-agency actions, including remov-\\nal proceedings. 663 F.3d 868 (7th Cir. 2011). We explained\\nthat “there are identifiable circumstances under which a\\ncritical procedural step in a removal proceeding … lies within\\n\\f8 No. 17-3521\\n\\nour jurisdiction even though we are barred from evaluating\\nthe [agency’s] ultimate decision.” Id. at 876–77 (emphasis\\nadded). But we lack jurisdiction if “it is impossible to distin-\\nguish the challenged action from the determination on the\\nmerits.” Id. at 877. In other words, “judicial review is fore-\\nclosed … if the agency’s rationale for denying the procedural\\nrequest also establishes the petitioner’s inability to prevail on\\nthe merits of his underlying claim.” Id. at 876.\\n Doe rests his entire case on Musunuru v. Lynch, in which\\nwe imported Calma’s reasoning to the § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)\\ncontext. Srinivasa Musunuru had a temporary work authori-\\nzation when he sought permanent residency. 831 F.3d at\\n882–83. His employer, Vision Systems Group, filed a visa\\npetition and labor certification on his behalf. The USCIS\\napproved both. Id. at 884. Four years later Musunuru left\\nVision Systems for Crescent Solutions, which filed a re-\\nplacement petition. The agency approved that petition too.\\nBut when Vision Systems’ principals pleaded guilty to\\nunlawfully hiring aliens, the USCIS revoked the company’s\\nlabor certifications—including Musunuru’s. Id. at 885. The\\nagency mailed a Notice of Intent to Revoke to the defunct\\ncompany, so Musunuru never saw it. When Vision Systems\\ndidn’t respond, the agency notified Crescent Solutions that\\n“Musunuru’s work experience with [Vision Systems] was\\nnot genuine[,] and therefore the approval of Crescent Solu-\\ntions’ [visa] petition … should be revoked.” Id.\\n Musunuru submitted rebuttal evidence but the agency\\ndenied his visa petition. He moved for reconsideration,\\narguing that he should have received notice and an oppor-\\ntunity to respond to the notice mailed to Vision Systems. The\\nUSCIS concluded that Musunuru lacked standing to bring\\n\\fNo. 17-3521 9\\n\\nthat challenge because as the beneficiary of the petition, rather\\nthan the petitioner himself, he was not an “affected party”\\nentitled to notice under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(iii)(B).\\nMusunuru brought an APA suit. The USCIS argued that\\n§§ 1155 and 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) precluded judicial review. The\\ndistrict court found jurisdiction but dismissed the suit on the\\nmerits.\\n The agency repeated its jurisdictional argument on ap-\\npeal. Relying on Calma, we rejected it:\\n [The] USCIS’s rationale for denying Musunuru\\n these procedures was that he is not the peti-\\n tioner. That rationale, by itself, does not pre-\\n vent Musunuru from prevailing on the merits\\n of his underlying claim, which is that the I-140\\n petition filed on his behalf by [Vision Systems]\\n was not fraudulent and should not have been\\n revoked. Therefore, judicial review is not fore-\\n closed. In other words, [the] USCIS’s rationale\\n concerns only the regulatory procedures and\\n not the merits of its decision to revoke the peti-\\n tion. Musunuru does indeed contend that he\\n can prevail on the merits of his underlying\\n claim … , but we are not reviewing that con-\\n tention. On the contrary, we are reviewing\\n [the] USCIS’s decision to deny him the oppor-\\n tunity to challenge the revocation. Ergo, we\\n have jurisdiction to review Musunuru’s claims.\\nMusunuru, 831 F.3d at 887–88. Two other circuits reached\\nsimilar conclusions when confronting this specific procedur-\\nal issue. See Mantena v. Johnson, 809 F.3d 721, 729 (2d Cir.\\n\\f10 No. 17-3521\\n\\n2015); Kurapati v. U.S. Bureau of Citizenship & Immigration\\nServs., 775 F.3d 1255, 1262 (11th Cir. 2014).\\n In sum, we’ve recognized a narrow jurisdictional path for\\nchallenging purely procedural rulings. In Calma we asserted\\njurisdiction over discrete “procedural step[s].” 663 F.3d at\\n877 (citing as examples “the denial of a continuance … , the\\ndenial of a motion to reconsider, a refusal to remand, or a\\nrefusal to reopen a case”). So we can review the immigration\\nagency’s resolution of a specific procedural dispute during\\nan administrative adjudication. See Musunuru, 831 F.3d at\\n888. But even then we lack jurisdiction if the rationale under-\\nlying the agency’s procedural ruling would also resolve the\\nmerits of the petitioner’s application. Id. at 887 (quoting\\nCalma, 663 F.3d at 876).\\n Calma and Musunuru do not, however, open the door to\\nchallenging discretionary revocations on nominally “proce-\\ndural” grounds. Courts may review identifiable procedural\\nrulings that don’t implicate a petition’s merits. But a plaintiff\\ncannot sidestep § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) by artfully framing a\\nchallenge to the agency’s substantive decision as a proce-\\ndural claim. Imagine the USCIS asks a visa applicant to\\nverify a fact supporting his EB-5 petition. The applicant\\nresponds with a self-prepared affidavit. Unconvinced, the\\nagency revokes the petition anyway. The alien might frame\\nan APA complaint in “procedural” terms, alleging that the\\nUSCIS violated its own regulations by failing to consider his\\naffidavit. But at bottom that’s a substantive challenge to the\\nagency’s weighing of the evidence, which Congress has\\nimmunized from judicial scrutiny.\\n Doe alleges that the USCIS violated several regulations\\ngoverning the revocation process. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 205.2(b)–\\n\\fNo. 17-3521 11\\n\\n(c), 103.2(b)(16)(i). He also cites a pair of agency opinions\\nrestating the regulatory language. See In re Arias, 19 I. & N.\\nDec. 568 (BIA 1988); In re Estime, 19 I. & N. Dec. 450 (BIA\\n1987). The regulations address the basic notice-and-response\\nrequirements that the USCIS must follow when deciding\\nwhether to revoke a visa petition. Everyone agrees that the\\nagency formally complied with those regulations. It gave\\nDoe an opportunity to rebut the Notice of Intent to Revoke,\\nand it provided a written explanation of its reasoning in the\\nNotice of Revocation.\\n Doe concedes that the USCIS followed this procedural\\nframework. He maintains that his opportunity for response\\nwas an empty formality: by incorrectly stating the facts and\\nthe law, the agency denied him a “legitimate opportunity to\\nchallenge” the revocation. He also argues that the language\\nused in the Notice of Intent to Revoke and Notice of Revoca-\\ntion betrays underlying procedural violations. As he sees it,\\neven a facial review of the agency’s papers would reveal that\\nthe USCIS disregarded its own procedures.\\n But § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars us from combing the substance\\nof the agency’s decision in search of a lurking procedural\\nviolation. To overcome the jurisdictional bar, Doe has re-\\npackaged a set of substantive complaints about the merits of\\nthe agency’s action as a set of procedural violations. Unlike\\nin Musunuru where the USCIS denied the petitioner “the\\nopportunity to challenge the revocation,” the agency did not\\n“deny[] [Doe] … procedures,” such as notice, an opportunity\\nto respond, or an administrative appeal. See 831 F.3d at 887–\\n88 (emphasis added). Nor did it make an identifiable proce-\\ndural ruling that might arguably qualify for review under\\nMusunuru. The USCIS simply evaluated the “entire record of\\n\\f12 No. 17-3521\\n\\nproceeding” in Doe’s case and revoked his petition for what\\nit deemed “good and sufficient cause.”\\n For all his “procedural” framing, what Doe really wants is\\njudicial review of the revocation under the APA’s arbitrary-\\nand-capricious standard. See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). Indeed, his\\narguments mirror the factors we consider when applying\\nthat standard of review. See Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S.,\\nInc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)\\n(examining whether the agency “offered an explanation …\\nthat runs counter to the evidence … or is so implausible that\\nit could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product\\nof agency expertise”). We’ve already established that courts\\ncannot use that standard to evaluate discretionary revoca-\\ntions under § 1155. See Bultasa Buddhist Temple, 878 F.3d at\\n574 (citing El–Khader, 366 F.3d at 565).\\n Taken to its logical conclusion, Doe’s approach would\\neviscerate § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). Any petitioner dissatisfied with\\na final agency decision could secure judicial review by\\nalleging that the agency committed a procedural violation by\\noverlooking favorable evidence. Musunuru doesn’t stand for\\nthat proposition, and we won’t adopt it here. Doe’s com-\\nplaint challenges the agency’s substantive decision-making,\\nnot its application of a procedural rule during administrative\\nadjudication. Merely citing the Code of Federal Regulations\\ndoesn’t convert a substantive challenge into a procedural\\none. The district court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is\\n AFFIRMED.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2589,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4630185,"string":"4,630,185"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Gheorgui Martov v. United States"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-06-17"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-3424"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before FLAUM, HAMILTON, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"PER CURIAM\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-3424\\nGHEORGUI MARTOV,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Defendant-Appellee.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 1:18-cv-1211 — Ronald A. Guzmán, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n SUBMITTED MAY 9, 2019* — DECIDED JUNE 17, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before FLAUM, HAMILTON, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\\n PER CURIAM. The government arrested Gheorgui Martov\\nfor wire fraud and seized several items of his personal prop-\\nerty including a watch, $4,035 in cash, a car, and nine firearms.\\n\\n *We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the\\n\\nbriefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and\\noral argument would not significantly aid the court. FED. R. APP.\\nP. 34(a)(2)(C).\\n\\f2 No. 18-3424\\n\\nIn exchange for Martov’s guilty plea, the government agreed\\nnot to pursue criminal forfeiture. But the government never\\nagreed to forgo administrative forfeiture proceedings, which\\nit had already initiated by sending notice to Martov and his\\nattorney. Martov responded to the government’s notice of ad-\\nministrative forfeiture by filing claims for the car and guns.\\nThe government denied both claims and declared the prop-\\nerty forfeited.\\n Martov then brought this action in the district court, seek-\\ning the return of the property. The district court denied relief,\\nand we now affirm, as Martov has failed to advance any mer-\\nitorious arguments. In doing so, however, we note our reser-\\nvations with the procedural path that the government took in\\nexecuting the forfeiture.\\n I\\n A\\n Martov participated in a wire fraud scheme in which he\\ncollected fraudulently obtained debit card numbers and per-\\nsonal identification numbers and then distributed them to\\nothers who used the information to make cash withdrawals\\nfrom ATMs. The conduct cost the victims approximately\\n$1.2 million. The government eventually caught on, and a\\ngrand jury indicted Martov on 22 counts of wire fraud in vio-\\nlation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, four counts of money laundering in\\nviolation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(B)(i), and one count each of\\nconspiracy to commit money laundering in violation of\\n18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) and obstruction of justice in violation of\\n18 U.S.C. § 1519. The grand jury also advanced two criminal\\nforfeiture allegations totaling $250,000.\\n\\fNo. 18-3424 3\\n\\n When FBI agents arrested Martov on March 24, 2014, they\\nseized a $25,000 watch, $4,035 cash, and a 2008 Mercedes-\\nBenz. The next day, when executing a search warrant at Mar-\\ntov’s home, the agents found and seized nine firearms.\\n Martov eventually pleaded guilty to a single count of wire\\nfraud. Under the plea agreement, the government agreed to\\ndismiss the criminal forfeiture allegations (which it did) but\\nreserved the option to pursue “any administrative or judicial\\ncivil claim.” The district court sentenced Martov to seven\\nyears’ imprisonment.\\n B\\n Separate and apart from Martov’s criminal proceeding,\\nthe government initiated an administrative forfeiture pro-\\nceeding for the property that it seized during Martov’s arrest\\nand the search of his home. The applicable statute, 18 U.S.C.\\n§ 983, required the government to notify Martov of any forfei-\\nture proceedings within 60 days from the seizures, see id.\\n§ 983(a)(1)(A)(i), meaning that it had until May 23, 2014 to no-\\ntify Martov of forfeiture proceedings for the watch, cash, and\\ncar (or else return them to Martov, see § 983 (a)(1)(F)) and un-\\ntil May 24 to do the same for the firearms.\\n The government sent certified mail to Martov at his prison\\naddress and to his lawyer regarding the cash on May 16, 2014\\nand the watch on May 20, 2014. The government did the same\\nfor the car on December 23, 2015—of course, by then\\n21 months had passed since the government’s seizure of the\\ncar, a plain violation of the 60-day deadline in\\n§ 983(a)(1)(A)(i). The record does not make clear when the\\ngovernment notified Martov about the proceedings over the\\nfirearms or how it did so. The government’s notices advised\\n\\f4 No. 18-3424\\n\\nMartov that he needed to submit a claim for each piece of\\nproperty or he would forfeit his rights to it. Martov never filed\\nclaims for the watch or cash, and the government declared\\nthem forfeited.\\n But Martov did file claims for the car and guns, triggering\\ncertain statutory protections. Specifically, the government\\nhad 90 days from the date of Martov's claim to file a com-\\nplaint, as set forth in the Supplemental Rules for Certain Ad-\\nmiralty and Maritime Claims, or return the property. See 18\\nU.S.C. § 983(a)(3).\\n The government missed that deadline, waiting five\\nmonths before denying Martov’s claim for the car. And when\\ndenying his claim, the government informed Martov that he\\nhad ten days during which he “may request reconsideration.”\\nSee 41 C.F.R. § 128-48.502(e) (explaining that a request for re-\\nconsideration may be submitted within ten days from the\\ndate of the government’s letter denying a claim). When the\\nten-day deadline passed without word from Martov, the gov-\\nernment entered what it called a “Declaration of Abandon-\\nment.” The Declaration explained that “a claim for the prop-\\nerty has been received and denied” and that title to the car\\nhad vested in the United States.\\n As for the firearms, the government again missed its dead-\\nline for responding to Martov’s claim. Six months after receiv-\\ning the claim, the government finally agreed to return four of\\nthe nine to the care of Martov’s brother. On the remaining five\\nguns, the government rejected Martov’s claim and deemed\\nthem forfeited when Martov did not timely seek reconsidera-\\ntion.\\n\\fNo. 18-3424 5\\n\\n C\\n What gives rise to this appeal is Martov’s filing a motion\\nin the district court, requesting the return of his watch,\\nmoney, car, and guns. Citing Federal Rule of Criminal Proce-\\ndure 41(g) (Motion to Return Property), he argued that the\\ngovernment wrongfully seized the property during the initial\\narrest and search because none of the seized items related to\\nhis crime. He also contended that the government violated the\\nplea agreement in his criminal case by taking the property\\nthrough administrative forfeiture proceedings.\\n The district court first noted that Rule 41(g) cannot be used\\nto seek the return of property that has been administratively\\nforfeited, so Martov’s motion was improper. Moving then to\\nconsider whether Martov might otherwise be entitled to re-\\nlief, the court observed that Martov had failed to argue that\\nthe government’s notice of the administrative forfeiture pro-\\nceedings was inadequate. This failure, the district court ex-\\nplained, doomed Martov’s case because 18 U.S.C. § 983(e)\\nlimited the scope of the court’s review to whether the govern-\\nment provided adequate notice of the administrative forfei-\\nture. And in any event, the court added, Martov’s plea agree-\\nment did not entitle him to relief because the government\\nagreed to forgo only criminal, not administrative, forfeiture\\nproceedings.\\n II\\n On appeal Martov again invokes Rule 41(g) and argues\\nthat the government illegally seized his property and then vi-\\nolated the plea agreement by using the tools of administrative\\nforfeiture to take title to it.\\n\\f6 No. 18-3424\\n\\n A\\n We agree with the district court as to the inapplicability of\\nRule 41(g). The forfeiture proceedings that Martov is chal-\\nlenging are civil, and thus Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure\\n41 does not apply. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 1(a)(5)(B); United States\\nv. Sims, 376 F.3d 705, 707–08 (7th Cir. 2004).\\n The district court also properly observed that Martov\\nnever challenged the adequacy of the government’s adminis-\\ntrative forfeiture notice. He has not done so on appeal either,\\naltogether omitting any specific challenges to the govern-\\nment’s notice letters, or more generally, a due process chal-\\nlenge to the government’s conduct or the scheme it has estab-\\nlished for executing administrative forfeitures. Martov, there-\\nfore, has not offered any valid basis upon which we may grant\\nrelief. See Chairez v. United States, 355 F.3d 1099, 1101 (7th Cir.\\n2004) (explaining that the scope of a federal court’s review of\\nadministrative forfeiture proceedings is limited); see also Li-\\nnarez v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 2 F.3d 208, 213 (7th Cir.\\n1993). The only arguments he does advance—that the govern-\\nment illegally seized his property and also violated the terms\\nof his plea agreement by pursuing administrative forfeiture—\\nare outside the scope of our review and, in any event, appear\\nto lack merit.\\n A future case may require us to consider the scope and\\nlimits, jurisdictional or otherwise, of a challenge to an admin-\\nistrative forfeiture. Some challenges may sound in due pro-\\ncess and others in statutory terms. Because these issues are\\nnot before us here, their development will have to await an-\\nother case.\\n\\fNo. 18-3424 7\\n\\n B\\n We conclude with a few words about the procedural path\\nof the administrative forfeiture the government charted here.\\nThe Supreme Court has advised that “[f]orfeitures are not fa-\\nvored; they should be enforced only when within both letter\\nand spirit of the law.” United States v. One 1936 Model Ford V-\\n8 De Luxe Coach, 307 U.S. 219, 226 (1939); see also United States\\nv. Real Properties located at 7215 Longboat Drive (Lot 24),\\n750 F.3d 968, 974 (8th Cir. 2014) (underscoring the same dis-\\nfavor of forfeiture).\\n If Martov had preserved and advanced an argument on\\nappeal that the government did not provide adequate notice\\nof administrative forfeiture we would have almost certainly\\nconcluded that the notice was adequate. In Dusenbery v.\\nUnited States, 534 U.S. 161 (2002), the FBI sent a claimant writ-\\nten notice via certified mail to the jail where he was housed,\\nand the Supreme Court determined that the government’s ap-\\nproach was “clearly acceptable” because it was reasonably\\ncalculated to reach him and inform him of the pendency of\\nthe administrative forfeiture. See id. at 172–73. The govern-\\nment here did even more, sending its notice of administrative\\nforfeiture by certified mail to Martov in jail and to his counsel.\\n But our review of the record also reveals that at several\\njunctures the government fell short of adhering to the stand-\\nards Congress prescribed in § 983 for implementing adminis-\\ntrative forfeiture.\\n For example, the government did not meet statutory dead-\\nlines on several occasions. The government sent notice to\\nMartov concerning the forfeiture of his car long after the man-\\n\\f8 No. 18-3424\\n\\ndated deadline for doing so had passed. Sec-\\ntion 983(a)(1)(A)(i) required the government to notify Martov\\nthat it was beginning forfeiture proceedings within 60 days of\\nseizing the car, but the government did not send notice for\\n21 months. The government also responded to Martov’s\\nclaims for the car and the guns long after the 90-day deadline\\nCongress prescribed in § 983(a)(3)(A). For reasons unex-\\nplained by the record, it took the government five months to\\nrespond to Martov’s claim for the car and six months to re-\\nspond to his claim for the guns.\\n By way of another example, the government never filed a\\ncomplaint for forfeiture in federal court. As soon as Martov\\nfiled claims for the car and guns, § 983 imposed a clear obli-\\ngation on the government. “Not later than 90 days after a\\nclaim has been filed, the Government shall file a complaint for\\nforfeiture in the manner set forth in the Supplemental Rules\\nfor Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims or return the\\nproperty pending the filing of a complaint.” 18 U.S.C.\\n§ 983(a)(3)(A). The government did neither here. The govern-\\nment instead denied Martov’s claims, informed him that he\\nhad ten days to ask the government to reconsider its decision,\\nand then declared the property abandoned when he did not\\ndo so. All of this was done, however, despite nothing in § 983\\nsuggesting that Martov needed to request reconsideration to\\ntrigger the government’s duty to either file a civil complaint\\nor return the property. Also concerning is that the govern-\\nment never warned Martov that his choosing not to seek re-\\nconsideration would result in forfeiting the property.\\n Martov did not contest the forfeiture on any of these\\ngrounds in his correspondence with the government, before\\nthe district court, or on appeal, and thus they offer no basis of\\n\\fNo. 18-3424 9\\n\\nrelief. See United States v. Wilson, 699 F.3d 789, 791 (4th Cir.\\n2012). Nor is the point of our observations to nitpick. We offer\\nthem to underscore the gravity of forfeiture and the impera-\\ntive of taking care to comply with the letter and spirit of the\\nprocedural requirements mandated by law. Sound process is\\nimportant.\\n AFFIRMED\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4407438/\", \"author_raw\": \"PER CURIAM\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"FLAUM"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"HAMILTON"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"SCUDDER"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"FLAUM\": \", Circuit\", \"HAMILTON\": \", Circuit\", \"SCUDDER\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4630185/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":6,"string":"6"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Gheorgui Martov v. United States\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-06-17\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-3424\nGHEORGUI MARTOV,\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\n v.\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n Defendant-Appellee.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 1:18-cv-1211 — Ronald A. Guzmán, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n SUBMITTED MAY 9, 2019* — DECIDED JUNE 17, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before FLAUM, HAMILTON, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\n PER CURIAM. The government arrested Gheorgui Martov\nfor wire fraud and seized several items of his personal prop-\nerty including a watch, $4,035 in cash, a car, and nine firearms.\n\n *We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the\n\nbriefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and\noral argument would not significantly aid the court. FED. R. APP.\nP. 34(a)(2)(C).\n\f2 No. 18-3424\n\nIn exchange for Martov’s guilty plea, the government agreed\nnot to pursue criminal forfeiture. But the government never\nagreed to forgo administrative forfeiture proceedings, which\nit had already initiated by sending notice to Martov and his\nattorney. Martov responded to the government’s notice of ad-\nministrative forfeiture by filing claims for the car and guns.\nThe government denied both claims and declared the prop-\nerty forfeited.\n Martov then brought this action in the district court, seek-\ning the return of the property. The district court denied relief,\nand we now affirm, as Martov has failed to advance any mer-\nitorious arguments. In doing so, however, we note our reser-\nvations with the procedural path that the government took in\nexecuting the forfeiture.\n I\n A\n Martov participated in a wire fraud scheme in which he\ncollected fraudulently obtained debit card numbers and per-\nsonal identification numbers and then distributed them to\nothers who used the information to make cash withdrawals\nfrom ATMs. The conduct cost the victims approximately\n$1.2 million. The government eventually caught on, and a\ngrand jury indicted Martov on 22 counts of wire fraud in vio-\nlation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, four counts of money laundering in\nviolation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(B)(i), and one count each of\nconspiracy to commit money laundering in violation of\n18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) and obstruction of justice in violation of\n18 U.S.C. § 1519. The grand jury also advanced two criminal\nforfeiture allegations totaling $250,000.\n\fNo. 18-3424 3\n\n When FBI agents arrested Martov on March 24, 2014, they\nseized a $25,000 watch, $4,035 cash, and a 2008 Mercedes-\nBenz. The next day, when executing a search warrant at Mar-\ntov’s home, the agents found and seized nine firearms.\n Martov eventually pleaded guilty to a single count of wire\nfraud. Under the plea agreement, the government agreed to\ndismiss the criminal forfeiture allegations (which it did) but\nreserved the option to pursue “any administrative or judicial\ncivil claim.” The district court sentenced Martov to seven\nyears’ imprisonment.\n B\n Separate and apart from Martov’s criminal proceeding,\nthe government initiated an administrative forfeiture pro-\nceeding for the property that it seized during Martov’s arrest\nand the search of his home. The applicable statute, 18 U.S.C.\n§ 983, required the government to notify Martov of any forfei-\nture proceedings within 60 days from the seizures, see id.\n§ 983(a)(1)(A)(i), meaning that it had until May 23, 2014 to no-\ntify Martov of forfeiture proceedings for the watch, cash, and\ncar (or else return them to Martov, see § 983 (a)(1)(F)) and un-\ntil May 24 to do the same for the firearms.\n The government sent certified mail to Martov at his prison\naddress and to his lawyer regarding the cash on May 16, 2014\nand the watch on May 20, 2014. The government did the same\nfor the car on December 23, 2015—of course, by then\n21 months had passed since the government’s seizure of the\ncar, a plain violation of the 60-day deadline in\n§ 983(a)(1)(A)(i). The record does not make clear when the\ngovernment notified Martov about the proceedings over the\nfirearms or how it did so. The government’s notices advised\n\f4 No. 18-3424\n\nMartov that he needed to submit a claim for each piece of\nproperty or he would forfeit his rights to it. Martov never filed\nclaims for the watch or cash, and the government declared\nthem forfeited.\n But Martov did file claims for the car and guns, triggering\ncertain statutory protections. Specifically, the government\nhad 90 days from the date of Martov's claim to file a com-\nplaint, as set forth in the Supplemental Rules for Certain Ad-\nmiralty and Maritime Claims, or return the property. See 18\nU.S.C. § 983(a)(3).\n The government missed that deadline, waiting five\nmonths before denying Martov’s claim for the car. And when\ndenying his claim, the government informed Martov that he\nhad ten days during which he “may request reconsideration.”\nSee 41 C.F.R. § 128-48.502(e) (explaining that a request for re-\nconsideration may be submitted within ten days from the\ndate of the government’s letter denying a claim). When the\nten-day deadline passed without word from Martov, the gov-\nernment entered what it called a “Declaration of Abandon-\nment.” The Declaration explained that “a claim for the prop-\nerty has been received and denied” and that title to the car\nhad vested in the United States.\n As for the firearms, the government again missed its dead-\nline for responding to Martov’s claim. Six months after receiv-\ning the claim, the government finally agreed to return four of\nthe nine to the care of Martov’s brother. On the remaining five\nguns, the government rejected Martov’s claim and deemed\nthem forfeited when Martov did not timely seek reconsidera-\ntion.\n\fNo. 18-3424 5\n\n C\n What gives rise to this appeal is Martov’s filing a motion\nin the district court, requesting the return of his watch,\nmoney, car, and guns. Citing Federal Rule of Criminal Proce-\ndure 41(g) (Motion to Return Property), he argued that the\ngovernment wrongfully seized the property during the initial\narrest and search because none of the seized items related to\nhis crime. He also contended that the government violated the\nplea agreement in his criminal case by taking the property\nthrough administrative forfeiture proceedings.\n The district court first noted that Rule 41(g) cannot be used\nto seek the return of property that has been administratively\nforfeited, so Martov’s motion was improper. Moving then to\nconsider whether Martov might otherwise be entitled to re-\nlief, the court observed that Martov had failed to argue that\nthe government’s notice of the administrative forfeiture pro-\nceedings was inadequate. This failure, the district court ex-\nplained, doomed Martov’s case because 18 U.S.C. § 983(e)\nlimited the scope of the court’s review to whether the govern-\nment provided adequate notice of the administrative forfei-\nture. And in any event, the court added, Martov’s plea agree-\nment did not entitle him to relief because the government\nagreed to forgo only criminal, not administrative, forfeiture\nproceedings.\n II\n On appeal Martov again invokes Rule 41(g) and argues\nthat the government illegally seized his property and then vi-\nolated the plea agreement by using the tools of administrative\nforfeiture to take title to it.\n\f6 No. 18-3424\n\n A\n We agree with the district court as to the inapplicability of\nRule 41(g). The forfeiture proceedings that Martov is chal-\nlenging are civil, and thus Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure\n41 does not apply. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 1(a)(5)(B); United States\nv. Sims, 376 F.3d 705, 707–08 (7th Cir. 2004).\n The district court also properly observed that Martov\nnever challenged the adequacy of the government’s adminis-\ntrative forfeiture notice. He has not done so on appeal either,\naltogether omitting any specific challenges to the govern-\nment’s notice letters, or more generally, a due process chal-\nlenge to the government’s conduct or the scheme it has estab-\nlished for executing administrative forfeitures. Martov, there-\nfore, has not offered any valid basis upon which we may grant\nrelief. See Chairez v. United States, 355 F.3d 1099, 1101 (7th Cir.\n2004) (explaining that the scope of a federal court’s review of\nadministrative forfeiture proceedings is limited); see also Li-\nnarez v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 2 F.3d 208, 213 (7th Cir.\n1993). The only arguments he does advance—that the govern-\nment illegally seized his property and also violated the terms\nof his plea agreement by pursuing administrative forfeiture—\nare outside the scope of our review and, in any event, appear\nto lack merit.\n A future case may require us to consider the scope and\nlimits, jurisdictional or otherwise, of a challenge to an admin-\nistrative forfeiture. Some challenges may sound in due pro-\ncess and others in statutory terms. Because these issues are\nnot before us here, their development will have to await an-\nother case.\n\fNo. 18-3424 7\n\n B\n We conclude with a few words about the procedural path\nof the administrative forfeiture the government charted here.\nThe Supreme Court has advised that “[f]orfeitures are not fa-\nvored; they should be enforced only when within both letter\nand spirit of the law.” United States v. One 1936 Model Ford V-\n8 De Luxe Coach, 307 U.S. 219, 226 (1939); see also United States\nv. Real Properties located at 7215 Longboat Drive (Lot 24),\n750 F.3d 968, 974 (8th Cir. 2014) (underscoring the same dis-\nfavor of forfeiture).\n If Martov had preserved and advanced an argument on\nappeal that the government did not provide adequate notice\nof administrative forfeiture we would have almost certainly\nconcluded that the notice was adequate. In Dusenbery v.\nUnited States, 534 U.S. 161 (2002), the FBI sent a claimant writ-\nten notice via certified mail to the jail where he was housed,\nand the Supreme Court determined that the government’s ap-\nproach was “clearly acceptable” because it was reasonably\ncalculated to reach him and inform him of the pendency of\nthe administrative forfeiture. See id. at 172–73. The govern-\nment here did even more, sending its notice of administrative\nforfeiture by certified mail to Martov in jail and to his counsel.\n But our review of the record also reveals that at several\njunctures the government fell short of adhering to the stand-\nards Congress prescribed in § 983 for implementing adminis-\ntrative forfeiture.\n For example, the government did not meet statutory dead-\nlines on several occasions. The government sent notice to\nMartov concerning the forfeiture of his car long after the man-\n\f8 No. 18-3424\n\ndated deadline for doing so had passed. Sec-\ntion 983(a)(1)(A)(i) required the government to notify Martov\nthat it was beginning forfeiture proceedings within 60 days of\nseizing the car, but the government did not send notice for\n21 months. The government also responded to Martov’s\nclaims for the car and the guns long after the 90-day deadline\nCongress prescribed in § 983(a)(3)(A). For reasons unex-\nplained by the record, it took the government five months to\nrespond to Martov’s claim for the car and six months to re-\nspond to his claim for the guns.\n By way of another example, the government never filed a\ncomplaint for forfeiture in federal court. As soon as Martov\nfiled claims for the car and guns, § 983 imposed a clear obli-\ngation on the government. “Not later than 90 days after a\nclaim has been filed, the Government shall file a complaint for\nforfeiture in the manner set forth in the Supplemental Rules\nfor Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims or return the\nproperty pending the filing of a complaint.” 18 U.S.C.\n§ 983(a)(3)(A). The government did neither here. The govern-\nment instead denied Martov’s claims, informed him that he\nhad ten days to ask the government to reconsider its decision,\nand then declared the property abandoned when he did not\ndo so. All of this was done, however, despite nothing in § 983\nsuggesting that Martov needed to request reconsideration to\ntrigger the government’s duty to either file a civil complaint\nor return the property. Also concerning is that the govern-\nment never warned Martov that his choosing not to seek re-\nconsideration would result in forfeiting the property.\n Martov did not contest the forfeiture on any of these\ngrounds in his correspondence with the government, before\nthe district court, or on appeal, and thus they offer no basis of\n\fNo. 18-3424 9\n\nrelief. See United States v. Wilson, 699 F.3d 789, 791 (4th Cir.\n2012). Nor is the point of our observations to nitpick. We offer\nthem to underscore the gravity of forfeiture and the impera-\ntive of taking care to comply with the letter and spirit of the\nprocedural requirements mandated by law. Sound process is\nimportant.\n AFFIRMED\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Gheorgui Martov v. United States\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-06-17\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-3424\\nGHEORGUI MARTOV,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Defendant-Appellee.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 1:18-cv-1211 — Ronald A. Guzmán, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n SUBMITTED MAY 9, 2019* — DECIDED JUNE 17, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before FLAUM, HAMILTON, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\\n PER CURIAM. The government arrested Gheorgui Martov\\nfor wire fraud and seized several items of his personal prop-\\nerty including a watch, $4,035 in cash, a car, and nine firearms.\\n\\n *We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the\\n\\nbriefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and\\noral argument would not significantly aid the court. FED. R. APP.\\nP. 34(a)(2)(C).\\n\\f2 No. 18-3424\\n\\nIn exchange for Martov’s guilty plea, the government agreed\\nnot to pursue criminal forfeiture. But the government never\\nagreed to forgo administrative forfeiture proceedings, which\\nit had already initiated by sending notice to Martov and his\\nattorney. Martov responded to the government’s notice of ad-\\nministrative forfeiture by filing claims for the car and guns.\\nThe government denied both claims and declared the prop-\\nerty forfeited.\\n Martov then brought this action in the district court, seek-\\ning the return of the property. The district court denied relief,\\nand we now affirm, as Martov has failed to advance any mer-\\nitorious arguments. In doing so, however, we note our reser-\\nvations with the procedural path that the government took in\\nexecuting the forfeiture.\\n I\\n A\\n Martov participated in a wire fraud scheme in which he\\ncollected fraudulently obtained debit card numbers and per-\\nsonal identification numbers and then distributed them to\\nothers who used the information to make cash withdrawals\\nfrom ATMs. The conduct cost the victims approximately\\n$1.2 million. The government eventually caught on, and a\\ngrand jury indicted Martov on 22 counts of wire fraud in vio-\\nlation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, four counts of money laundering in\\nviolation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(B)(i), and one count each of\\nconspiracy to commit money laundering in violation of\\n18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) and obstruction of justice in violation of\\n18 U.S.C. § 1519. The grand jury also advanced two criminal\\nforfeiture allegations totaling $250,000.\\n\\fNo. 18-3424 3\\n\\n When FBI agents arrested Martov on March 24, 2014, they\\nseized a $25,000 watch, $4,035 cash, and a 2008 Mercedes-\\nBenz. The next day, when executing a search warrant at Mar-\\ntov’s home, the agents found and seized nine firearms.\\n Martov eventually pleaded guilty to a single count of wire\\nfraud. Under the plea agreement, the government agreed to\\ndismiss the criminal forfeiture allegations (which it did) but\\nreserved the option to pursue “any administrative or judicial\\ncivil claim.” The district court sentenced Martov to seven\\nyears’ imprisonment.\\n B\\n Separate and apart from Martov’s criminal proceeding,\\nthe government initiated an administrative forfeiture pro-\\nceeding for the property that it seized during Martov’s arrest\\nand the search of his home. The applicable statute, 18 U.S.C.\\n§ 983, required the government to notify Martov of any forfei-\\nture proceedings within 60 days from the seizures, see id.\\n§ 983(a)(1)(A)(i), meaning that it had until May 23, 2014 to no-\\ntify Martov of forfeiture proceedings for the watch, cash, and\\ncar (or else return them to Martov, see § 983 (a)(1)(F)) and un-\\ntil May 24 to do the same for the firearms.\\n The government sent certified mail to Martov at his prison\\naddress and to his lawyer regarding the cash on May 16, 2014\\nand the watch on May 20, 2014. The government did the same\\nfor the car on December 23, 2015—of course, by then\\n21 months had passed since the government’s seizure of the\\ncar, a plain violation of the 60-day deadline in\\n§ 983(a)(1)(A)(i). The record does not make clear when the\\ngovernment notified Martov about the proceedings over the\\nfirearms or how it did so. The government’s notices advised\\n\\f4 No. 18-3424\\n\\nMartov that he needed to submit a claim for each piece of\\nproperty or he would forfeit his rights to it. Martov never filed\\nclaims for the watch or cash, and the government declared\\nthem forfeited.\\n But Martov did file claims for the car and guns, triggering\\ncertain statutory protections. Specifically, the government\\nhad 90 days from the date of Martov's claim to file a com-\\nplaint, as set forth in the Supplemental Rules for Certain Ad-\\nmiralty and Maritime Claims, or return the property. See 18\\nU.S.C. § 983(a)(3).\\n The government missed that deadline, waiting five\\nmonths before denying Martov’s claim for the car. And when\\ndenying his claim, the government informed Martov that he\\nhad ten days during which he “may request reconsideration.”\\nSee 41 C.F.R. § 128-48.502(e) (explaining that a request for re-\\nconsideration may be submitted within ten days from the\\ndate of the government’s letter denying a claim). When the\\nten-day deadline passed without word from Martov, the gov-\\nernment entered what it called a “Declaration of Abandon-\\nment.” The Declaration explained that “a claim for the prop-\\nerty has been received and denied” and that title to the car\\nhad vested in the United States.\\n As for the firearms, the government again missed its dead-\\nline for responding to Martov’s claim. Six months after receiv-\\ning the claim, the government finally agreed to return four of\\nthe nine to the care of Martov’s brother. On the remaining five\\nguns, the government rejected Martov’s claim and deemed\\nthem forfeited when Martov did not timely seek reconsidera-\\ntion.\\n\\fNo. 18-3424 5\\n\\n C\\n What gives rise to this appeal is Martov’s filing a motion\\nin the district court, requesting the return of his watch,\\nmoney, car, and guns. Citing Federal Rule of Criminal Proce-\\ndure 41(g) (Motion to Return Property), he argued that the\\ngovernment wrongfully seized the property during the initial\\narrest and search because none of the seized items related to\\nhis crime. He also contended that the government violated the\\nplea agreement in his criminal case by taking the property\\nthrough administrative forfeiture proceedings.\\n The district court first noted that Rule 41(g) cannot be used\\nto seek the return of property that has been administratively\\nforfeited, so Martov’s motion was improper. Moving then to\\nconsider whether Martov might otherwise be entitled to re-\\nlief, the court observed that Martov had failed to argue that\\nthe government’s notice of the administrative forfeiture pro-\\nceedings was inadequate. This failure, the district court ex-\\nplained, doomed Martov’s case because 18 U.S.C. § 983(e)\\nlimited the scope of the court’s review to whether the govern-\\nment provided adequate notice of the administrative forfei-\\nture. And in any event, the court added, Martov’s plea agree-\\nment did not entitle him to relief because the government\\nagreed to forgo only criminal, not administrative, forfeiture\\nproceedings.\\n II\\n On appeal Martov again invokes Rule 41(g) and argues\\nthat the government illegally seized his property and then vi-\\nolated the plea agreement by using the tools of administrative\\nforfeiture to take title to it.\\n\\f6 No. 18-3424\\n\\n A\\n We agree with the district court as to the inapplicability of\\nRule 41(g). The forfeiture proceedings that Martov is chal-\\nlenging are civil, and thus Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure\\n41 does not apply. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 1(a)(5)(B); United States\\nv. Sims, 376 F.3d 705, 707–08 (7th Cir. 2004).\\n The district court also properly observed that Martov\\nnever challenged the adequacy of the government’s adminis-\\ntrative forfeiture notice. He has not done so on appeal either,\\naltogether omitting any specific challenges to the govern-\\nment’s notice letters, or more generally, a due process chal-\\nlenge to the government’s conduct or the scheme it has estab-\\nlished for executing administrative forfeitures. Martov, there-\\nfore, has not offered any valid basis upon which we may grant\\nrelief. See Chairez v. United States, 355 F.3d 1099, 1101 (7th Cir.\\n2004) (explaining that the scope of a federal court’s review of\\nadministrative forfeiture proceedings is limited); see also Li-\\nnarez v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 2 F.3d 208, 213 (7th Cir.\\n1993). The only arguments he does advance—that the govern-\\nment illegally seized his property and also violated the terms\\nof his plea agreement by pursuing administrative forfeiture—\\nare outside the scope of our review and, in any event, appear\\nto lack merit.\\n A future case may require us to consider the scope and\\nlimits, jurisdictional or otherwise, of a challenge to an admin-\\nistrative forfeiture. Some challenges may sound in due pro-\\ncess and others in statutory terms. Because these issues are\\nnot before us here, their development will have to await an-\\nother case.\\n\\fNo. 18-3424 7\\n\\n B\\n We conclude with a few words about the procedural path\\nof the administrative forfeiture the government charted here.\\nThe Supreme Court has advised that “[f]orfeitures are not fa-\\nvored; they should be enforced only when within both letter\\nand spirit of the law.” United States v. One 1936 Model Ford V-\\n8 De Luxe Coach, 307 U.S. 219, 226 (1939); see also United States\\nv. Real Properties located at 7215 Longboat Drive (Lot 24),\\n750 F.3d 968, 974 (8th Cir. 2014) (underscoring the same dis-\\nfavor of forfeiture).\\n If Martov had preserved and advanced an argument on\\nappeal that the government did not provide adequate notice\\nof administrative forfeiture we would have almost certainly\\nconcluded that the notice was adequate. In Dusenbery v.\\nUnited States, 534 U.S. 161 (2002), the FBI sent a claimant writ-\\nten notice via certified mail to the jail where he was housed,\\nand the Supreme Court determined that the government’s ap-\\nproach was “clearly acceptable” because it was reasonably\\ncalculated to reach him and inform him of the pendency of\\nthe administrative forfeiture. See id. at 172–73. The govern-\\nment here did even more, sending its notice of administrative\\nforfeiture by certified mail to Martov in jail and to his counsel.\\n But our review of the record also reveals that at several\\njunctures the government fell short of adhering to the stand-\\nards Congress prescribed in § 983 for implementing adminis-\\ntrative forfeiture.\\n For example, the government did not meet statutory dead-\\nlines on several occasions. The government sent notice to\\nMartov concerning the forfeiture of his car long after the man-\\n\\f8 No. 18-3424\\n\\ndated deadline for doing so had passed. Sec-\\ntion 983(a)(1)(A)(i) required the government to notify Martov\\nthat it was beginning forfeiture proceedings within 60 days of\\nseizing the car, but the government did not send notice for\\n21 months. The government also responded to Martov’s\\nclaims for the car and the guns long after the 90-day deadline\\nCongress prescribed in § 983(a)(3)(A). For reasons unex-\\nplained by the record, it took the government five months to\\nrespond to Martov’s claim for the car and six months to re-\\nspond to his claim for the guns.\\n By way of another example, the government never filed a\\ncomplaint for forfeiture in federal court. As soon as Martov\\nfiled claims for the car and guns, § 983 imposed a clear obli-\\ngation on the government. “Not later than 90 days after a\\nclaim has been filed, the Government shall file a complaint for\\nforfeiture in the manner set forth in the Supplemental Rules\\nfor Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims or return the\\nproperty pending the filing of a complaint.” 18 U.S.C.\\n§ 983(a)(3)(A). The government did neither here. The govern-\\nment instead denied Martov’s claims, informed him that he\\nhad ten days to ask the government to reconsider its decision,\\nand then declared the property abandoned when he did not\\ndo so. All of this was done, however, despite nothing in § 983\\nsuggesting that Martov needed to request reconsideration to\\ntrigger the government’s duty to either file a civil complaint\\nor return the property. Also concerning is that the govern-\\nment never warned Martov that his choosing not to seek re-\\nconsideration would result in forfeiting the property.\\n Martov did not contest the forfeiture on any of these\\ngrounds in his correspondence with the government, before\\nthe district court, or on appeal, and thus they offer no basis of\\n\\fNo. 18-3424 9\\n\\nrelief. See United States v. Wilson, 699 F.3d 789, 791 (4th Cir.\\n2012). Nor is the point of our observations to nitpick. We offer\\nthem to underscore the gravity of forfeiture and the impera-\\ntive of taking care to comply with the letter and spirit of the\\nprocedural requirements mandated by law. Sound process is\\nimportant.\\n AFFIRMED\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2590,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4630294,"string":"4,630,294"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Tyrone Gabb v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc."},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-06-17"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-2351"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before RIPPLE, MANION, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Daniel Anthony Manion\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-2351\\nTYRONE GABB,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nWEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES,\\nINC., et al.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Southern District of Illinois\\n No. 15-cv-01415 — J. Phil Gilbert, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED MARCH 28, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 17, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before RIPPLE, MANION, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.\\n MANION, Circuit Judge. While serving a prison sentence at\\nthe Lawrence Correctional Center in Illinois, Tyrone Gabb ex-\\nperienced severe back pain whenever he stood too long (15 to\\n20 minutes). After treatments he received did not relieve his\\npain, Gabb sued two members of the medical staff at Law-\\nrence, Dr. John Coe and Nurse Tammy Kimmel, alleging they\\nwere deliberately indifferent to his back pain in violation of\\n\\f2 No. 18-2351\\n\\nhis constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual pun-\\nishments. Gabb also sued Wexford Health Sources, Inc., the\\nprivate company that provided medical services at Lawrence.\\nThe district court granted summary judgment to all defend-\\nants, and Gabb appeals. Because Gabb has not presented any\\nevidence showing the defendants caused him any harm, we\\naffirm.\\n I.\\n This case comes to us on appeal from the grant of sum-\\nmary judgment, so we present the facts “in the light most fa-\\nvorable to [Gabb] and draw all inferences in [Gabb’s] favor.”\\nEstate of Simpson v. Gorbett, 863 F.3d 740, 745 (7th Cir. 2017).\\n Dr. Coe was the medical director at Lawrence. He first saw\\nGabb for back pain in January 2014. Coe performed an x-ray,\\nbut he did not prescribe medication. When he saw Gabb a\\nmonth later, Coe confirmed Gabb had pain in his lower back,\\nbut he again did not prescribe medication.\\n In September 2014, Gabb underwent another x-ray. This\\ntime, Coe diagnosed Gabb with chronic back pain and pre-\\nscribed the painkiller Motrin and the muscle-relaxer Robaxin.\\nWhen Gabb saw Coe again a month later, he told Coe the\\nmedications did little. Coe ordered Gabb a back support and\\nchanged Gabb’s painkiller prescription from Motrin to\\nNaproxen. Later that month, Gabb complained to a nurse the\\nback support and the painkillers were not providing relief. In\\nFebruary 2015, a physician’s assistant discontinued Gabb’s\\nNaproxen and prescribed Tylenol instead.\\n In March 2015, Gabb reported to the infirmary with ab-\\ndominal pain and encountered Nurse Kimmel. Gabb told\\n\\fNo. 18-2351 3\\n\\nKimmel he had osteoarthritis in his lower back and he be-\\nlieved the Tylenol was causing his stomach pain. He re-\\nquested a referral to a doctor so he could get a different med-\\nication. Because Gabb’s reason for seeking treatment was ab-\\ndominal pain, the only medication Kimmel could have ad-\\nministered pursuant to protocol was an antacid. Kimmel did\\nnot refer Gabb to a doctor or give him an antacid, but instead\\ntold him “to (1) lower his dose of Tylenol; (2) drink plenty of\\nfluids and eat properly; (3) plan on attending his follow-up\\nappointment with the physician’s assistant in June; and (4)\\ncome back to the infirmary if his symptoms worsened.”\\n In early April 2015, Gabb reported to the infirmary again\\ncomplaining of abdominal pain he believed was caused by the\\nTylenol. Gabb testified in his deposition that as he came to the\\nroom, Kimmel “immediately notified [him] that she was not\\ngoing to refer [him] to any physician because [he] was not in\\npain.” Gabb says he tried to tell Kimmel about his back pain,\\nbut “she verbally abused” and swore at him. She did not refer\\nGabb to a physician or consult with one concerning an appro-\\npriate course of treatment.\\n At the end of April, Gabb reported to the infirmary for ab-\\ndominal pain a third time. On this occasion, because he had\\nreported more than twice with the same complaint, he re-\\nceived a referral to Dr. Coe. When he saw Coe a week later,\\nCoe re-prescribed Naproxen, prescribed Vitamin D (which\\nCoe believed could help with muscle spasms and tightness),\\nand tightened Gabb’s back support. Coe told Gabb better\\ntreatment was available, but Wexford would not pay for it.\\n Coe saw Gabb again in the summer of 2015. Gabb com-\\nplained the Naproxen was not working. Coe tightened Gabb’s\\n\\f4 No. 18-2351\\n\\nback brace, demonstrated therapy exercises that could reduce\\nthe pain, and suggested Gabb exercise.\\n In August 2015, a physician’s assistant saw Gabb. The\\nphysician’s assistant reported Gabb’s pain was increasing and\\nhe suffered from a decreased range of motion. Gabb also had\\na slower gait and reported tingling in his toes. The physician’s\\nassistant prescribed Mobic, an anti-inflammatory drug.\\n In September 2015, Coe saw Gabb again. Gabb reported\\nthe pain was creeping into his middle back from his lower\\nback. Coe discontinued the Mobic and re-prescribed Robaxin.\\nIn October 2015, Coe diagnosed Gabb with mild degenerative\\ndisk disease and again prescribed Robaxin. He again told\\nGabb better treatments were available, but he would not refer\\nGabb because those treatments were too expensive. He also\\ntold Gabb that Wexford did not run a pain clinic. Later that\\nmonth, Coe again prescribed Naproxen. In November 2015,\\nCoe declined a low-bunk request for Gabb. That was the last\\nof Coe’s interactions with Gabb. At the time of his deposition\\nin 2017, Gabb testified he was under the care of a different\\nphysician and was still prescribed Naproxen, though he was\\nnot taking it because it was ineffective.\\n Gabb sued Coe, Kimmel, and their employer, Wexford, in\\nDecember 2015, claiming they violated his right to be free\\nfrom cruel and unusual punishments. The district court re-\\nferred the case to a magistrate judge. Coe and Kimmel moved\\nfor summary judgment. The magistrate judge recommended\\ndenying the motion. The judge found evidence showing Gabb\\nsuffered from a serious medical condition. The judge con-\\ncluded a reasonable jury could find Coe was deliberately in-\\ndifferent to that condition because he continued to prescribe\\nthe same medication knowing it was ineffective and made\\n\\fNo. 18-2351 5\\n\\ntreatment decisions based on costs, not medical judgment.\\nThe judge also concluded a reasonable jury could find Kim-\\nmel deliberately indifferent because she was aware of Gabb’s\\nback pain, yet refused to provide any medication or refer\\nGabb to a doctor.\\n Coe and Kimmel objected to the magistrate judge’s con-\\nclusions on deliberate indifference. The district court sus-\\ntained the objections, rejected the magistrate judge’s recom-\\nmendation, and granted the motion for summary judgment.\\nIn doing so, the district court catalogued the medical care Coe\\nprovided Gabb, concluding it represented a “thorough exer-\\ncise of medical discretion via numerous treatment strategies,”\\nnot “dogged persistence.” The district court wrote off Coe’s\\ncomments about the availability of “better treatment” because\\n“[a]ll of the evidence indicates that Dr. Coe’s medical treat-\\nment of Gabb involved the exercise of medical discretion and\\nwas not blatantly inappropriate.” The district court also con-\\ncluded Kimmel had provided constitutionally sufficient care;\\nGabb was just disagreeing with his treatment plan by request-\\ning a different pain medication. Having concluded there was\\nno underlying constitutional violation, the district court\\ngranted summary judgment sua sponte to Wexford.\\n II.\\n Gabb appeals the entry of summary judgment for the de-\\nfendants. We review de novo. Estate of Simpson, 863 F.3d at 745.\\nWe will affirm “if the movant shows that there is no genuine\\ndispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to\\njudgment as a matter of law.” See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). “By its\\nvery terms, this standard provides that the mere existence of\\nsome alleged factual dispute between the parties will not de-\\nfeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary\\n\\f6 No. 18-2351\\n\\njudgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of\\nmaterial fact.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247–\\n48 (1986). Thus, “summary judgment must be entered ‘against\\na party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the\\nexistence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on\\nwhich that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.’” Cooper\\nv. Lane, 969 F.2d 368, 371 (7th Cir. 1992) (quoting Celotex Corp.\\nv. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986)). “We may affirm the grant\\nof summary judgment on any ground supported by the rec-\\nord, as long as the parties adequately presented the issue be-\\nfore the district court and the nonmoving party had an oppor-\\ntunity to contest it.” de Lima Silva v. Dept. of Corrections, 917\\nF.3d 546, 558 (7th Cir. 2019).\\nA. Coe and Kimmel\\n Gabb brings this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which creates\\na tort remedy for those injured by the deprivation of a consti-\\ntutional right. See Roe v. Elyea, 631 F.3d 843, 863–64 (7th Cir.\\n2011). In order to succeed in a § 1983 suit, a plaintiff must “es-\\ntablish not only that a state actor violated his constitutional\\nrights, but also that the violation caused the plaintiff injury or\\ndamages.” Id. at 864.\\n Gabb claims his medical treatment at Lawrence violated\\nhis right to be free from cruel and unusual punishments. The\\nEighth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads:\\n“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines im-\\nposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” The Su-\\npreme Court tells us the proscription of cruel and unusual\\npunishments creates an “obligation to provide medical care”\\nto prisoners. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102–03 (1976); John-\\nson v. Doughty, 433 F.3d 1001, 1010 (7th Cir. 2006). This does\\nnot mean prisoners are “entitled to receive unqualified access\\n\\fNo. 18-2351 7\\n\\nto healthcare.” Burton v. Downey, 805 F.3d 776, 785 (7th Cir.\\n2015) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Hudson v.\\nMcMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992)). Nor does it turn medical mal-\\npractice into a constitutional violation. See Snipes v. DeTella, 95\\nF.3d 586, 590–91 (7th Cir. 1996) (“Such matters are questions\\nof tort, not constitutional law.”). Instead, the Eighth Amend-\\nment, as the Supreme Court has interpreted it, “protects pris-\\noners from prison conditions that cause ‘the wanton and un-\\nnecessary infliction of pain,’ including … grossly inadequate\\nmedical care.” Pyles v. Fahim, 771 F.3d 403, 408 (7th Cir. 2014)\\n(citations omitted) (quoting Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337,\\n347 (1981)).\\n We use a two-part test to determine if medical care\\namounted to cruel and unusual punishment. Petties v. Carter,\\n836 F.3d 722, 727–28 (7th Cir. 2016) (en banc). We ask\\n“whether a plaintiff suffered from an objectively serious med-\\nical condition” and “whether the individual defendant was\\ndeliberately indifferent to that condition.” Id. at 728.\\n In this case, the magistrate judge found evidence to con-\\nclude Gabb’s back pain qualified as an objectively serious\\nmedical condition. Coe and Kimmel did not object to that\\nfinding to the district court, and do not argue the point here.\\nSee generally Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th\\nCir. 1999) (“If a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s re-\\nport and recommendation in the district court, in this Circuit\\nhe waives appellate review of both factual and legal ques-\\ntions.”). So, we turn to deliberate indifference.\\n In Petties, this court, sitting en banc, expounded on the de-\\nliberate indifference standard at length. 836 F.3d at 728–31.\\n“[D]eliberate indifference” requires a “subjective state of\\nmind” somewhere between negligence and intention. Id. at\\n\\f8 No. 18-2351\\n\\n728. To show deliberate indifference, “a plaintiff must pro-\\nvide evidence that an official actually knew of and disre-\\ngarded a substantial risk of harm.” Id.\\n Gabb charges Coe and Kimmel with deliberate indiffer-\\nence. He maintains Coe was deliberately indifferent by per-\\nsisting in a course of ineffective treatment despite available\\nalternatives because of cost, and he maintains Kimmel was\\ndeliberately indifferent by failing to refer him to a physician\\nor prescribe him pain medication. However, we need not de-\\ncide whether Coe and Kimmel’s conduct rose to the level of\\ndeliberate indifference because, even if it did, Gabb has not\\nshown an injury as a result of their actions.\\n 1. Coe\\n Gabb has not presented any evidence by which a jury\\ncould reasonably find Gabb experienced harm at Coe’s hands.\\nGabb’s entire argument is he suffered because of Coe’s refusal\\nto adopt a “better” course of treatment because it was too ex-\\npensive. But Gabb does not tell us what that specific treatment\\nwas or how it would have alleviated his back pain. Gabb tes-\\ntified Coe mentioned surgery and medications (though he\\ncannot remember which ones) and now tells us the “better”\\ntreatment could also have been cortisone shots or a referral to\\na specialist, but he provides no details. And even if he was\\nmore specific about the “better” treatments, Gabb has no evi-\\ndence that any course of treatment, be it as simple as referral\\nto a chiropractor or as involved as surgery at the finest hospi-\\ntal in Illinois, would have provided him any relief from his\\nchronic back pain. See Petties, 836 F.3d at 733 (concluding the\\nplaintiff could not pursue his claim against the prison doctor\\nfor failing “to explore surgery as an option” in part because\\n\\fNo. 18-2351 9\\n\\nthe plaintiff “did not produce medical evidence confirming\\nthat he would have benefited from surgery”).\\n It is not enough that Coe referred to these other, unknown\\ntreatments as “better.” “Better” is not synonymous with\\n“good” or “effective.” Most people would consider falling\\nfrom five feet as better than falling from twenty, but neither\\nwould likely be good for one’s health. Gabb’s evidence sug-\\ngesting his condition declined during the relevant time pe-\\nriod—he suffered a reduced range of motion, experienced tin-\\ngling in his toes, and the pain spread to his middle back—is\\nalso insufficient to show harm as a result of Coe’s treatment.\\nHe has no evidence by which a reasonable jury could con-\\nclude Coe’s alleged failure to refer him to “better” treatment\\ncaused that decline. See Langston v. Peters, 100 F.3d 1235, 1240\\n(7th Cir. 1996) (“[A]n inmate who complains that delay in\\nmedical treatment rose to a constitutional violation must\\nplace verifying medical evidence in the record to establish the\\ndetrimental effect of delay in medical treatment to succeed.”\\n(quoting Beyerbach v. Sears, 49 F.3d 1324, 1326 (8th Cir. 1995))).\\n At oral argument, Gabb compared his situation to that of\\nthe plaintiff in Berry v. Peterman, 604 F.3d 435, 438–39 (7th Cir.\\n2010), whose persistent complaints of tooth pain were even-\\ntually remedied by a root canal. But unlike the plaintiff in\\nBerry, Gabb cannot show he suffered from “serious but avoid-\\nable pain.” Id. at 438 (emphasis added). There is no evidence\\nCoe’s decision to continue conservative forms of treatment in\\nany way negatively affected Gabb’s health.\\n The lack of evidence of what the “better” treatments were\\nand whether they would have been effective would leave a\\njury entirely to its own imagination about what could have\\n\\f10 No. 18-2351\\n\\nbeen done. Such unmitigated speculation cannot defeat sum-\\nmary judgment. See Austin v. Walgreen Co., 885 F.3d 1085, 1089\\n(7th Cir. 2018).\\n 2. Kimmel\\n The same evidentiary deficiency dooms Gabb’s claim\\nagainst Kimmel. Gabb faults Kimmel for not referring him to\\na doctor or giving him a different pain medication when Kim-\\nmel saw him in 2015. But even if those omissions amounted\\nto deliberate indifference, there is no evidence they harmed\\nGabb. Gabb has presented nothing suggesting that if he had\\nseen a doctor or received different medication soon after see-\\ning Kimmel it would have reduced his back pain. See Lang-\\nston, 100 F.3d at 1240. With no evidence that Kimmel’s con-\\nduct harmed him, he is not entitled to recovery under § 1983.\\nB. Wexford\\n We must also address the district court’s sua sponte grant\\nof summary judgment to Wexford. The court’s authority to\\nenter judgment sua sponte comes from Federal Rule of Civil\\nProcedure 56(f), which provides: “After giving notice and a rea-\\nsonable time to respond, the court may: (1) grant summary judg-\\nment for a nonmovant … ” (emphasis added).\\n We emphasize the prefatory phrase because the district\\ncourt did not give notice of its intent to grant summary judg-\\nment for Wexford before it did so. That was error. Cf. Williams\\nv. City of Chicago, 733 F.3d 749, 755 (7th Cir. 2013) (“It is not\\nappropriate to grant summary judgment based on facts the\\nmoving party did not rely on, at least without giving the los-\\ning party advance notice and an opportunity to be heard.”).\\nThe court should have given the parties notice of some sort\\nbefore it entered summary judgment for Wexford. See, e.g.,\\n\\fNo. 18-2351 11\\n\\nBaemmert v. Credit One Bank, N.A., 271 F. Supp. 3d 1043, 1053,\\n1054 (W.D. Wis. 2017) (giving the plaintiff one week to explain\\nwhy the court should not grant summary judgment); Cook v.\\nKnight (In re Knight), 574 B.R. 800, 818 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2017)\\n(giving the plaintiff 24 days to show cause why the court\\nshould not grant summary judgment).\\n Nevertheless, that technical error does not compel a re-\\nmand. Summary judgment for Wexford was clearly appropri-\\nate because Gabb has no evidence of harm. A plaintiff can\\nbring a Monell-style claim against a private corporation acting\\nunder color of state law. Whiting v. Wexford Health Sources,\\nInc., 839 F.3d 658, 664 (7th Cir. 2016). To be liable, the corpo-\\nration must have “maintained an unconstitutional policy or\\ncustom.” Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768, 780 (7th Cir. 2015).\\nThat policy or custom must cause the injury that is the basis\\nof the plaintiff’s § 1983 claim. See Woodward v. Correctional\\nMed. Servs. of Ill., Inc., 368 F.3d 917, 928 (7th Cir. 2004). Because\\nGabb cannot show he suffered any injury based on his medi-\\ncal treatment at Lawrence, he cannot show any Wexford pol-\\nicy or custom harmed him. Accordingly, his claim against\\nWexford is bound to fail. As we know Gabb cannot win, we\\nwill not go through the pointless exercise of remanding the\\ncase. See Hassebrock v. Bernhoft, 815 F.3d 334, 343 n.3 (7th Cir.\\n2016) (declining to “remand a case for trial when we know the\\nplaintiffs cannot win,” calling it “a waste of time, money, and\\njudicial resources”).\\n III.\\n The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4407547/\", \"author_raw\": \"Daniel Anthony Manion\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"RIPPLE"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"MANION"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"SYKES"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"RIPPLE\": \", Circuit\", \"MANION\": \", Circuit\", \"SYKES\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4630294/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":6,"string":"6"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Tyrone Gabb v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-06-17\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-2351\nTYRONE GABB,\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\n v.\n\nWEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES,\nINC., et al.,\n Defendants-Appellees.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Southern District of Illinois\n No. 15-cv-01415 — J. Phil Gilbert, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED MARCH 28, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 17, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before RIPPLE, MANION, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.\n MANION, Circuit Judge. While serving a prison sentence at\nthe Lawrence Correctional Center in Illinois, Tyrone Gabb ex-\nperienced severe back pain whenever he stood too long (15 to\n20 minutes). After treatments he received did not relieve his\npain, Gabb sued two members of the medical staff at Law-\nrence, Dr. John Coe and Nurse Tammy Kimmel, alleging they\nwere deliberately indifferent to his back pain in violation of\n\f2 No. 18-2351\n\nhis constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual pun-\nishments. Gabb also sued Wexford Health Sources, Inc., the\nprivate company that provided medical services at Lawrence.\nThe district court granted summary judgment to all defend-\nants, and Gabb appeals. Because Gabb has not presented any\nevidence showing the defendants caused him any harm, we\naffirm.\n I.\n This case comes to us on appeal from the grant of sum-\nmary judgment, so we present the facts “in the light most fa-\nvorable to [Gabb] and draw all inferences in [Gabb’s] favor.”\nEstate of Simpson v. Gorbett, 863 F.3d 740, 745 (7th Cir. 2017).\n Dr. Coe was the medical director at Lawrence. He first saw\nGabb for back pain in January 2014. Coe performed an x-ray,\nbut he did not prescribe medication. When he saw Gabb a\nmonth later, Coe confirmed Gabb had pain in his lower back,\nbut he again did not prescribe medication.\n In September 2014, Gabb underwent another x-ray. This\ntime, Coe diagnosed Gabb with chronic back pain and pre-\nscribed the painkiller Motrin and the muscle-relaxer Robaxin.\nWhen Gabb saw Coe again a month later, he told Coe the\nmedications did little. Coe ordered Gabb a back support and\nchanged Gabb’s painkiller prescription from Motrin to\nNaproxen. Later that month, Gabb complained to a nurse the\nback support and the painkillers were not providing relief. In\nFebruary 2015, a physician’s assistant discontinued Gabb’s\nNaproxen and prescribed Tylenol instead.\n In March 2015, Gabb reported to the infirmary with ab-\ndominal pain and encountered Nurse Kimmel. Gabb told\n\fNo. 18-2351 3\n\nKimmel he had osteoarthritis in his lower back and he be-\nlieved the Tylenol was causing his stomach pain. He re-\nquested a referral to a doctor so he could get a different med-\nication. Because Gabb’s reason for seeking treatment was ab-\ndominal pain, the only medication Kimmel could have ad-\nministered pursuant to protocol was an antacid. Kimmel did\nnot refer Gabb to a doctor or give him an antacid, but instead\ntold him “to (1) lower his dose of Tylenol; (2) drink plenty of\nfluids and eat properly; (3) plan on attending his follow-up\nappointment with the physician’s assistant in June; and (4)\ncome back to the infirmary if his symptoms worsened.”\n In early April 2015, Gabb reported to the infirmary again\ncomplaining of abdominal pain he believed was caused by the\nTylenol. Gabb testified in his deposition that as he came to the\nroom, Kimmel “immediately notified [him] that she was not\ngoing to refer [him] to any physician because [he] was not in\npain.” Gabb says he tried to tell Kimmel about his back pain,\nbut “she verbally abused” and swore at him. She did not refer\nGabb to a physician or consult with one concerning an appro-\npriate course of treatment.\n At the end of April, Gabb reported to the infirmary for ab-\ndominal pain a third time. On this occasion, because he had\nreported more than twice with the same complaint, he re-\nceived a referral to Dr. Coe. When he saw Coe a week later,\nCoe re-prescribed Naproxen, prescribed Vitamin D (which\nCoe believed could help with muscle spasms and tightness),\nand tightened Gabb’s back support. Coe told Gabb better\ntreatment was available, but Wexford would not pay for it.\n Coe saw Gabb again in the summer of 2015. Gabb com-\nplained the Naproxen was not working. Coe tightened Gabb’s\n\f4 No. 18-2351\n\nback brace, demonstrated therapy exercises that could reduce\nthe pain, and suggested Gabb exercise.\n In August 2015, a physician’s assistant saw Gabb. The\nphysician’s assistant reported Gabb’s pain was increasing and\nhe suffered from a decreased range of motion. Gabb also had\na slower gait and reported tingling in his toes. The physician’s\nassistant prescribed Mobic, an anti-inflammatory drug.\n In September 2015, Coe saw Gabb again. Gabb reported\nthe pain was creeping into his middle back from his lower\nback. Coe discontinued the Mobic and re-prescribed Robaxin.\nIn October 2015, Coe diagnosed Gabb with mild degenerative\ndisk disease and again prescribed Robaxin. He again told\nGabb better treatments were available, but he would not refer\nGabb because those treatments were too expensive. He also\ntold Gabb that Wexford did not run a pain clinic. Later that\nmonth, Coe again prescribed Naproxen. In November 2015,\nCoe declined a low-bunk request for Gabb. That was the last\nof Coe’s interactions with Gabb. At the time of his deposition\nin 2017, Gabb testified he was under the care of a different\nphysician and was still prescribed Naproxen, though he was\nnot taking it because it was ineffective.\n Gabb sued Coe, Kimmel, and their employer, Wexford, in\nDecember 2015, claiming they violated his right to be free\nfrom cruel and unusual punishments. The district court re-\nferred the case to a magistrate judge. Coe and Kimmel moved\nfor summary judgment. The magistrate judge recommended\ndenying the motion. The judge found evidence showing Gabb\nsuffered from a serious medical condition. The judge con-\ncluded a reasonable jury could find Coe was deliberately in-\ndifferent to that condition because he continued to prescribe\nthe same medication knowing it was ineffective and made\n\fNo. 18-2351 5\n\ntreatment decisions based on costs, not medical judgment.\nThe judge also concluded a reasonable jury could find Kim-\nmel deliberately indifferent because she was aware of Gabb’s\nback pain, yet refused to provide any medication or refer\nGabb to a doctor.\n Coe and Kimmel objected to the magistrate judge’s con-\nclusions on deliberate indifference. The district court sus-\ntained the objections, rejected the magistrate judge’s recom-\nmendation, and granted the motion for summary judgment.\nIn doing so, the district court catalogued the medical care Coe\nprovided Gabb, concluding it represented a “thorough exer-\ncise of medical discretion via numerous treatment strategies,”\nnot “dogged persistence.” The district court wrote off Coe’s\ncomments about the availability of “better treatment” because\n“[a]ll of the evidence indicates that Dr. Coe’s medical treat-\nment of Gabb involved the exercise of medical discretion and\nwas not blatantly inappropriate.” The district court also con-\ncluded Kimmel had provided constitutionally sufficient care;\nGabb was just disagreeing with his treatment plan by request-\ning a different pain medication. Having concluded there was\nno underlying constitutional violation, the district court\ngranted summary judgment sua sponte to Wexford.\n II.\n Gabb appeals the entry of summary judgment for the de-\nfendants. We review de novo. Estate of Simpson, 863 F.3d at 745.\nWe will affirm “if the movant shows that there is no genuine\ndispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to\njudgment as a matter of law.” See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). “By its\nvery terms, this standard provides that the mere existence of\nsome alleged factual dispute between the parties will not de-\nfeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary\n\f6 No. 18-2351\n\njudgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of\nmaterial fact.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247–\n48 (1986). Thus, “summary judgment must be entered ‘against\na party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the\nexistence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on\nwhich that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.’” Cooper\nv. Lane, 969 F.2d 368, 371 (7th Cir. 1992) (quoting Celotex Corp.\nv. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986)). “We may affirm the grant\nof summary judgment on any ground supported by the rec-\nord, as long as the parties adequately presented the issue be-\nfore the district court and the nonmoving party had an oppor-\ntunity to contest it.” de Lima Silva v. Dept. of Corrections, 917\nF.3d 546, 558 (7th Cir. 2019).\nA. Coe and Kimmel\n Gabb brings this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which creates\na tort remedy for those injured by the deprivation of a consti-\ntutional right. See Roe v. Elyea, 631 F.3d 843, 863–64 (7th Cir.\n2011). In order to succeed in a § 1983 suit, a plaintiff must “es-\ntablish not only that a state actor violated his constitutional\nrights, but also that the violation caused the plaintiff injury or\ndamages.” Id. at 864.\n Gabb claims his medical treatment at Lawrence violated\nhis right to be free from cruel and unusual punishments. The\nEighth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads:\n“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines im-\nposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” The Su-\npreme Court tells us the proscription of cruel and unusual\npunishments creates an “obligation to provide medical care”\nto prisoners. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102–03 (1976); John-\nson v. Doughty, 433 F.3d 1001, 1010 (7th Cir. 2006). This does\nnot mean prisoners are “entitled to receive unqualified access\n\fNo. 18-2351 7\n\nto healthcare.” Burton v. Downey, 805 F.3d 776, 785 (7th Cir.\n2015) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Hudson v.\nMcMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992)). Nor does it turn medical mal-\npractice into a constitutional violation. See Snipes v. DeTella, 95\nF.3d 586, 590–91 (7th Cir. 1996) (“Such matters are questions\nof tort, not constitutional law.”). Instead, the Eighth Amend-\nment, as the Supreme Court has interpreted it, “protects pris-\noners from prison conditions that cause ‘the wanton and un-\nnecessary infliction of pain,’ including … grossly inadequate\nmedical care.” Pyles v. Fahim, 771 F.3d 403, 408 (7th Cir. 2014)\n(citations omitted) (quoting Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337,\n347 (1981)).\n We use a two-part test to determine if medical care\namounted to cruel and unusual punishment. Petties v. Carter,\n836 F.3d 722, 727–28 (7th Cir. 2016) (en banc). We ask\n“whether a plaintiff suffered from an objectively serious med-\nical condition” and “whether the individual defendant was\ndeliberately indifferent to that condition.” Id. at 728.\n In this case, the magistrate judge found evidence to con-\nclude Gabb’s back pain qualified as an objectively serious\nmedical condition. Coe and Kimmel did not object to that\nfinding to the district court, and do not argue the point here.\nSee generally Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th\nCir. 1999) (“If a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s re-\nport and recommendation in the district court, in this Circuit\nhe waives appellate review of both factual and legal ques-\ntions.”). So, we turn to deliberate indifference.\n In Petties, this court, sitting en banc, expounded on the de-\nliberate indifference standard at length. 836 F.3d at 728–31.\n“[D]eliberate indifference” requires a “subjective state of\nmind” somewhere between negligence and intention. Id. at\n\f8 No. 18-2351\n\n728. To show deliberate indifference, “a plaintiff must pro-\nvide evidence that an official actually knew of and disre-\ngarded a substantial risk of harm.” Id.\n Gabb charges Coe and Kimmel with deliberate indiffer-\nence. He maintains Coe was deliberately indifferent by per-\nsisting in a course of ineffective treatment despite available\nalternatives because of cost, and he maintains Kimmel was\ndeliberately indifferent by failing to refer him to a physician\nor prescribe him pain medication. However, we need not de-\ncide whether Coe and Kimmel’s conduct rose to the level of\ndeliberate indifference because, even if it did, Gabb has not\nshown an injury as a result of their actions.\n 1. Coe\n Gabb has not presented any evidence by which a jury\ncould reasonably find Gabb experienced harm at Coe’s hands.\nGabb’s entire argument is he suffered because of Coe’s refusal\nto adopt a “better” course of treatment because it was too ex-\npensive. But Gabb does not tell us what that specific treatment\nwas or how it would have alleviated his back pain. Gabb tes-\ntified Coe mentioned surgery and medications (though he\ncannot remember which ones) and now tells us the “better”\ntreatment could also have been cortisone shots or a referral to\na specialist, but he provides no details. And even if he was\nmore specific about the “better” treatments, Gabb has no evi-\ndence that any course of treatment, be it as simple as referral\nto a chiropractor or as involved as surgery at the finest hospi-\ntal in Illinois, would have provided him any relief from his\nchronic back pain. See Petties, 836 F.3d at 733 (concluding the\nplaintiff could not pursue his claim against the prison doctor\nfor failing “to explore surgery as an option” in part because\n\fNo. 18-2351 9\n\nthe plaintiff “did not produce medical evidence confirming\nthat he would have benefited from surgery”).\n It is not enough that Coe referred to these other, unknown\ntreatments as “better.” “Better” is not synonymous with\n“good” or “effective.” Most people would consider falling\nfrom five feet as better than falling from twenty, but neither\nwould likely be good for one’s health. Gabb’s evidence sug-\ngesting his condition declined during the relevant time pe-\nriod—he suffered a reduced range of motion, experienced tin-\ngling in his toes, and the pain spread to his middle back—is\nalso insufficient to show harm as a result of Coe’s treatment.\nHe has no evidence by which a reasonable jury could con-\nclude Coe’s alleged failure to refer him to “better” treatment\ncaused that decline. See Langston v. Peters, 100 F.3d 1235, 1240\n(7th Cir. 1996) (“[A]n inmate who complains that delay in\nmedical treatment rose to a constitutional violation must\nplace verifying medical evidence in the record to establish the\ndetrimental effect of delay in medical treatment to succeed.”\n(quoting Beyerbach v. Sears, 49 F.3d 1324, 1326 (8th Cir. 1995))).\n At oral argument, Gabb compared his situation to that of\nthe plaintiff in Berry v. Peterman, 604 F.3d 435, 438–39 (7th Cir.\n2010), whose persistent complaints of tooth pain were even-\ntually remedied by a root canal. But unlike the plaintiff in\nBerry, Gabb cannot show he suffered from “serious but avoid-\nable pain.” Id. at 438 (emphasis added). There is no evidence\nCoe’s decision to continue conservative forms of treatment in\nany way negatively affected Gabb’s health.\n The lack of evidence of what the “better” treatments were\nand whether they would have been effective would leave a\njury entirely to its own imagination about what could have\n\f10 No. 18-2351\n\nbeen done. Such unmitigated speculation cannot defeat sum-\nmary judgment. See Austin v. Walgreen Co., 885 F.3d 1085, 1089\n(7th Cir. 2018).\n 2. Kimmel\n The same evidentiary deficiency dooms Gabb’s claim\nagainst Kimmel. Gabb faults Kimmel for not referring him to\na doctor or giving him a different pain medication when Kim-\nmel saw him in 2015. But even if those omissions amounted\nto deliberate indifference, there is no evidence they harmed\nGabb. Gabb has presented nothing suggesting that if he had\nseen a doctor or received different medication soon after see-\ning Kimmel it would have reduced his back pain. See Lang-\nston, 100 F.3d at 1240. With no evidence that Kimmel’s con-\nduct harmed him, he is not entitled to recovery under § 1983.\nB. Wexford\n We must also address the district court’s sua sponte grant\nof summary judgment to Wexford. The court’s authority to\nenter judgment sua sponte comes from Federal Rule of Civil\nProcedure 56(f), which provides: “After giving notice and a rea-\nsonable time to respond, the court may: (1) grant summary judg-\nment for a nonmovant … ” (emphasis added).\n We emphasize the prefatory phrase because the district\ncourt did not give notice of its intent to grant summary judg-\nment for Wexford before it did so. That was error. Cf. Williams\nv. City of Chicago, 733 F.3d 749, 755 (7th Cir. 2013) (“It is not\nappropriate to grant summary judgment based on facts the\nmoving party did not rely on, at least without giving the los-\ning party advance notice and an opportunity to be heard.”).\nThe court should have given the parties notice of some sort\nbefore it entered summary judgment for Wexford. See, e.g.,\n\fNo. 18-2351 11\n\nBaemmert v. Credit One Bank, N.A., 271 F. Supp. 3d 1043, 1053,\n1054 (W.D. Wis. 2017) (giving the plaintiff one week to explain\nwhy the court should not grant summary judgment); Cook v.\nKnight (In re Knight), 574 B.R. 800, 818 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2017)\n(giving the plaintiff 24 days to show cause why the court\nshould not grant summary judgment).\n Nevertheless, that technical error does not compel a re-\nmand. Summary judgment for Wexford was clearly appropri-\nate because Gabb has no evidence of harm. A plaintiff can\nbring a Monell-style claim against a private corporation acting\nunder color of state law. Whiting v. Wexford Health Sources,\nInc., 839 F.3d 658, 664 (7th Cir. 2016). To be liable, the corpo-\nration must have “maintained an unconstitutional policy or\ncustom.” Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768, 780 (7th Cir. 2015).\nThat policy or custom must cause the injury that is the basis\nof the plaintiff’s § 1983 claim. See Woodward v. Correctional\nMed. Servs. of Ill., Inc., 368 F.3d 917, 928 (7th Cir. 2004). Because\nGabb cannot show he suffered any injury based on his medi-\ncal treatment at Lawrence, he cannot show any Wexford pol-\nicy or custom harmed him. Accordingly, his claim against\nWexford is bound to fail. As we know Gabb cannot win, we\nwill not go through the pointless exercise of remanding the\ncase. See Hassebrock v. Bernhoft, 815 F.3d 334, 343 n.3 (7th Cir.\n2016) (declining to “remand a case for trial when we know the\nplaintiffs cannot win,” calling it “a waste of time, money, and\njudicial resources”).\n III.\n The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Tyrone Gabb v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-06-17\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-2351\\nTYRONE GABB,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nWEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES,\\nINC., et al.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Southern District of Illinois\\n No. 15-cv-01415 — J. Phil Gilbert, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED MARCH 28, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 17, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before RIPPLE, MANION, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.\\n MANION, Circuit Judge. While serving a prison sentence at\\nthe Lawrence Correctional Center in Illinois, Tyrone Gabb ex-\\nperienced severe back pain whenever he stood too long (15 to\\n20 minutes). After treatments he received did not relieve his\\npain, Gabb sued two members of the medical staff at Law-\\nrence, Dr. John Coe and Nurse Tammy Kimmel, alleging they\\nwere deliberately indifferent to his back pain in violation of\\n\\f2 No. 18-2351\\n\\nhis constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual pun-\\nishments. Gabb also sued Wexford Health Sources, Inc., the\\nprivate company that provided medical services at Lawrence.\\nThe district court granted summary judgment to all defend-\\nants, and Gabb appeals. Because Gabb has not presented any\\nevidence showing the defendants caused him any harm, we\\naffirm.\\n I.\\n This case comes to us on appeal from the grant of sum-\\nmary judgment, so we present the facts “in the light most fa-\\nvorable to [Gabb] and draw all inferences in [Gabb’s] favor.”\\nEstate of Simpson v. Gorbett, 863 F.3d 740, 745 (7th Cir. 2017).\\n Dr. Coe was the medical director at Lawrence. He first saw\\nGabb for back pain in January 2014. Coe performed an x-ray,\\nbut he did not prescribe medication. When he saw Gabb a\\nmonth later, Coe confirmed Gabb had pain in his lower back,\\nbut he again did not prescribe medication.\\n In September 2014, Gabb underwent another x-ray. This\\ntime, Coe diagnosed Gabb with chronic back pain and pre-\\nscribed the painkiller Motrin and the muscle-relaxer Robaxin.\\nWhen Gabb saw Coe again a month later, he told Coe the\\nmedications did little. Coe ordered Gabb a back support and\\nchanged Gabb’s painkiller prescription from Motrin to\\nNaproxen. Later that month, Gabb complained to a nurse the\\nback support and the painkillers were not providing relief. In\\nFebruary 2015, a physician’s assistant discontinued Gabb’s\\nNaproxen and prescribed Tylenol instead.\\n In March 2015, Gabb reported to the infirmary with ab-\\ndominal pain and encountered Nurse Kimmel. Gabb told\\n\\fNo. 18-2351 3\\n\\nKimmel he had osteoarthritis in his lower back and he be-\\nlieved the Tylenol was causing his stomach pain. He re-\\nquested a referral to a doctor so he could get a different med-\\nication. Because Gabb’s reason for seeking treatment was ab-\\ndominal pain, the only medication Kimmel could have ad-\\nministered pursuant to protocol was an antacid. Kimmel did\\nnot refer Gabb to a doctor or give him an antacid, but instead\\ntold him “to (1) lower his dose of Tylenol; (2) drink plenty of\\nfluids and eat properly; (3) plan on attending his follow-up\\nappointment with the physician’s assistant in June; and (4)\\ncome back to the infirmary if his symptoms worsened.”\\n In early April 2015, Gabb reported to the infirmary again\\ncomplaining of abdominal pain he believed was caused by the\\nTylenol. Gabb testified in his deposition that as he came to the\\nroom, Kimmel “immediately notified [him] that she was not\\ngoing to refer [him] to any physician because [he] was not in\\npain.” Gabb says he tried to tell Kimmel about his back pain,\\nbut “she verbally abused” and swore at him. She did not refer\\nGabb to a physician or consult with one concerning an appro-\\npriate course of treatment.\\n At the end of April, Gabb reported to the infirmary for ab-\\ndominal pain a third time. On this occasion, because he had\\nreported more than twice with the same complaint, he re-\\nceived a referral to Dr. Coe. When he saw Coe a week later,\\nCoe re-prescribed Naproxen, prescribed Vitamin D (which\\nCoe believed could help with muscle spasms and tightness),\\nand tightened Gabb’s back support. Coe told Gabb better\\ntreatment was available, but Wexford would not pay for it.\\n Coe saw Gabb again in the summer of 2015. Gabb com-\\nplained the Naproxen was not working. Coe tightened Gabb’s\\n\\f4 No. 18-2351\\n\\nback brace, demonstrated therapy exercises that could reduce\\nthe pain, and suggested Gabb exercise.\\n In August 2015, a physician’s assistant saw Gabb. The\\nphysician’s assistant reported Gabb’s pain was increasing and\\nhe suffered from a decreased range of motion. Gabb also had\\na slower gait and reported tingling in his toes. The physician’s\\nassistant prescribed Mobic, an anti-inflammatory drug.\\n In September 2015, Coe saw Gabb again. Gabb reported\\nthe pain was creeping into his middle back from his lower\\nback. Coe discontinued the Mobic and re-prescribed Robaxin.\\nIn October 2015, Coe diagnosed Gabb with mild degenerative\\ndisk disease and again prescribed Robaxin. He again told\\nGabb better treatments were available, but he would not refer\\nGabb because those treatments were too expensive. He also\\ntold Gabb that Wexford did not run a pain clinic. Later that\\nmonth, Coe again prescribed Naproxen. In November 2015,\\nCoe declined a low-bunk request for Gabb. That was the last\\nof Coe’s interactions with Gabb. At the time of his deposition\\nin 2017, Gabb testified he was under the care of a different\\nphysician and was still prescribed Naproxen, though he was\\nnot taking it because it was ineffective.\\n Gabb sued Coe, Kimmel, and their employer, Wexford, in\\nDecember 2015, claiming they violated his right to be free\\nfrom cruel and unusual punishments. The district court re-\\nferred the case to a magistrate judge. Coe and Kimmel moved\\nfor summary judgment. The magistrate judge recommended\\ndenying the motion. The judge found evidence showing Gabb\\nsuffered from a serious medical condition. The judge con-\\ncluded a reasonable jury could find Coe was deliberately in-\\ndifferent to that condition because he continued to prescribe\\nthe same medication knowing it was ineffective and made\\n\\fNo. 18-2351 5\\n\\ntreatment decisions based on costs, not medical judgment.\\nThe judge also concluded a reasonable jury could find Kim-\\nmel deliberately indifferent because she was aware of Gabb’s\\nback pain, yet refused to provide any medication or refer\\nGabb to a doctor.\\n Coe and Kimmel objected to the magistrate judge’s con-\\nclusions on deliberate indifference. The district court sus-\\ntained the objections, rejected the magistrate judge’s recom-\\nmendation, and granted the motion for summary judgment.\\nIn doing so, the district court catalogued the medical care Coe\\nprovided Gabb, concluding it represented a “thorough exer-\\ncise of medical discretion via numerous treatment strategies,”\\nnot “dogged persistence.” The district court wrote off Coe’s\\ncomments about the availability of “better treatment” because\\n“[a]ll of the evidence indicates that Dr. Coe’s medical treat-\\nment of Gabb involved the exercise of medical discretion and\\nwas not blatantly inappropriate.” The district court also con-\\ncluded Kimmel had provided constitutionally sufficient care;\\nGabb was just disagreeing with his treatment plan by request-\\ning a different pain medication. Having concluded there was\\nno underlying constitutional violation, the district court\\ngranted summary judgment sua sponte to Wexford.\\n II.\\n Gabb appeals the entry of summary judgment for the de-\\nfendants. We review de novo. Estate of Simpson, 863 F.3d at 745.\\nWe will affirm “if the movant shows that there is no genuine\\ndispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to\\njudgment as a matter of law.” See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). “By its\\nvery terms, this standard provides that the mere existence of\\nsome alleged factual dispute between the parties will not de-\\nfeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary\\n\\f6 No. 18-2351\\n\\njudgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of\\nmaterial fact.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247–\\n48 (1986). Thus, “summary judgment must be entered ‘against\\na party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the\\nexistence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on\\nwhich that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.’” Cooper\\nv. Lane, 969 F.2d 368, 371 (7th Cir. 1992) (quoting Celotex Corp.\\nv. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986)). “We may affirm the grant\\nof summary judgment on any ground supported by the rec-\\nord, as long as the parties adequately presented the issue be-\\nfore the district court and the nonmoving party had an oppor-\\ntunity to contest it.” de Lima Silva v. Dept. of Corrections, 917\\nF.3d 546, 558 (7th Cir. 2019).\\nA. Coe and Kimmel\\n Gabb brings this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which creates\\na tort remedy for those injured by the deprivation of a consti-\\ntutional right. See Roe v. Elyea, 631 F.3d 843, 863–64 (7th Cir.\\n2011). In order to succeed in a § 1983 suit, a plaintiff must “es-\\ntablish not only that a state actor violated his constitutional\\nrights, but also that the violation caused the plaintiff injury or\\ndamages.” Id. at 864.\\n Gabb claims his medical treatment at Lawrence violated\\nhis right to be free from cruel and unusual punishments. The\\nEighth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads:\\n“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines im-\\nposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” The Su-\\npreme Court tells us the proscription of cruel and unusual\\npunishments creates an “obligation to provide medical care”\\nto prisoners. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102–03 (1976); John-\\nson v. Doughty, 433 F.3d 1001, 1010 (7th Cir. 2006). This does\\nnot mean prisoners are “entitled to receive unqualified access\\n\\fNo. 18-2351 7\\n\\nto healthcare.” Burton v. Downey, 805 F.3d 776, 785 (7th Cir.\\n2015) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Hudson v.\\nMcMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992)). Nor does it turn medical mal-\\npractice into a constitutional violation. See Snipes v. DeTella, 95\\nF.3d 586, 590–91 (7th Cir. 1996) (“Such matters are questions\\nof tort, not constitutional law.”). Instead, the Eighth Amend-\\nment, as the Supreme Court has interpreted it, “protects pris-\\noners from prison conditions that cause ‘the wanton and un-\\nnecessary infliction of pain,’ including … grossly inadequate\\nmedical care.” Pyles v. Fahim, 771 F.3d 403, 408 (7th Cir. 2014)\\n(citations omitted) (quoting Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337,\\n347 (1981)).\\n We use a two-part test to determine if medical care\\namounted to cruel and unusual punishment. Petties v. Carter,\\n836 F.3d 722, 727–28 (7th Cir. 2016) (en banc). We ask\\n“whether a plaintiff suffered from an objectively serious med-\\nical condition” and “whether the individual defendant was\\ndeliberately indifferent to that condition.” Id. at 728.\\n In this case, the magistrate judge found evidence to con-\\nclude Gabb’s back pain qualified as an objectively serious\\nmedical condition. Coe and Kimmel did not object to that\\nfinding to the district court, and do not argue the point here.\\nSee generally Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th\\nCir. 1999) (“If a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s re-\\nport and recommendation in the district court, in this Circuit\\nhe waives appellate review of both factual and legal ques-\\ntions.”). So, we turn to deliberate indifference.\\n In Petties, this court, sitting en banc, expounded on the de-\\nliberate indifference standard at length. 836 F.3d at 728–31.\\n“[D]eliberate indifference” requires a “subjective state of\\nmind” somewhere between negligence and intention. Id. at\\n\\f8 No. 18-2351\\n\\n728. To show deliberate indifference, “a plaintiff must pro-\\nvide evidence that an official actually knew of and disre-\\ngarded a substantial risk of harm.” Id.\\n Gabb charges Coe and Kimmel with deliberate indiffer-\\nence. He maintains Coe was deliberately indifferent by per-\\nsisting in a course of ineffective treatment despite available\\nalternatives because of cost, and he maintains Kimmel was\\ndeliberately indifferent by failing to refer him to a physician\\nor prescribe him pain medication. However, we need not de-\\ncide whether Coe and Kimmel’s conduct rose to the level of\\ndeliberate indifference because, even if it did, Gabb has not\\nshown an injury as a result of their actions.\\n 1. Coe\\n Gabb has not presented any evidence by which a jury\\ncould reasonably find Gabb experienced harm at Coe’s hands.\\nGabb’s entire argument is he suffered because of Coe’s refusal\\nto adopt a “better” course of treatment because it was too ex-\\npensive. But Gabb does not tell us what that specific treatment\\nwas or how it would have alleviated his back pain. Gabb tes-\\ntified Coe mentioned surgery and medications (though he\\ncannot remember which ones) and now tells us the “better”\\ntreatment could also have been cortisone shots or a referral to\\na specialist, but he provides no details. And even if he was\\nmore specific about the “better” treatments, Gabb has no evi-\\ndence that any course of treatment, be it as simple as referral\\nto a chiropractor or as involved as surgery at the finest hospi-\\ntal in Illinois, would have provided him any relief from his\\nchronic back pain. See Petties, 836 F.3d at 733 (concluding the\\nplaintiff could not pursue his claim against the prison doctor\\nfor failing “to explore surgery as an option” in part because\\n\\fNo. 18-2351 9\\n\\nthe plaintiff “did not produce medical evidence confirming\\nthat he would have benefited from surgery”).\\n It is not enough that Coe referred to these other, unknown\\ntreatments as “better.” “Better” is not synonymous with\\n“good” or “effective.” Most people would consider falling\\nfrom five feet as better than falling from twenty, but neither\\nwould likely be good for one’s health. Gabb’s evidence sug-\\ngesting his condition declined during the relevant time pe-\\nriod—he suffered a reduced range of motion, experienced tin-\\ngling in his toes, and the pain spread to his middle back—is\\nalso insufficient to show harm as a result of Coe’s treatment.\\nHe has no evidence by which a reasonable jury could con-\\nclude Coe’s alleged failure to refer him to “better” treatment\\ncaused that decline. See Langston v. Peters, 100 F.3d 1235, 1240\\n(7th Cir. 1996) (“[A]n inmate who complains that delay in\\nmedical treatment rose to a constitutional violation must\\nplace verifying medical evidence in the record to establish the\\ndetrimental effect of delay in medical treatment to succeed.”\\n(quoting Beyerbach v. Sears, 49 F.3d 1324, 1326 (8th Cir. 1995))).\\n At oral argument, Gabb compared his situation to that of\\nthe plaintiff in Berry v. Peterman, 604 F.3d 435, 438–39 (7th Cir.\\n2010), whose persistent complaints of tooth pain were even-\\ntually remedied by a root canal. But unlike the plaintiff in\\nBerry, Gabb cannot show he suffered from “serious but avoid-\\nable pain.” Id. at 438 (emphasis added). There is no evidence\\nCoe’s decision to continue conservative forms of treatment in\\nany way negatively affected Gabb’s health.\\n The lack of evidence of what the “better” treatments were\\nand whether they would have been effective would leave a\\njury entirely to its own imagination about what could have\\n\\f10 No. 18-2351\\n\\nbeen done. Such unmitigated speculation cannot defeat sum-\\nmary judgment. See Austin v. Walgreen Co., 885 F.3d 1085, 1089\\n(7th Cir. 2018).\\n 2. Kimmel\\n The same evidentiary deficiency dooms Gabb’s claim\\nagainst Kimmel. Gabb faults Kimmel for not referring him to\\na doctor or giving him a different pain medication when Kim-\\nmel saw him in 2015. But even if those omissions amounted\\nto deliberate indifference, there is no evidence they harmed\\nGabb. Gabb has presented nothing suggesting that if he had\\nseen a doctor or received different medication soon after see-\\ning Kimmel it would have reduced his back pain. See Lang-\\nston, 100 F.3d at 1240. With no evidence that Kimmel’s con-\\nduct harmed him, he is not entitled to recovery under § 1983.\\nB. Wexford\\n We must also address the district court’s sua sponte grant\\nof summary judgment to Wexford. The court’s authority to\\nenter judgment sua sponte comes from Federal Rule of Civil\\nProcedure 56(f), which provides: “After giving notice and a rea-\\nsonable time to respond, the court may: (1) grant summary judg-\\nment for a nonmovant … ” (emphasis added).\\n We emphasize the prefatory phrase because the district\\ncourt did not give notice of its intent to grant summary judg-\\nment for Wexford before it did so. That was error. Cf. Williams\\nv. City of Chicago, 733 F.3d 749, 755 (7th Cir. 2013) (“It is not\\nappropriate to grant summary judgment based on facts the\\nmoving party did not rely on, at least without giving the los-\\ning party advance notice and an opportunity to be heard.”).\\nThe court should have given the parties notice of some sort\\nbefore it entered summary judgment for Wexford. See, e.g.,\\n\\fNo. 18-2351 11\\n\\nBaemmert v. Credit One Bank, N.A., 271 F. Supp. 3d 1043, 1053,\\n1054 (W.D. Wis. 2017) (giving the plaintiff one week to explain\\nwhy the court should not grant summary judgment); Cook v.\\nKnight (In re Knight), 574 B.R. 800, 818 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2017)\\n(giving the plaintiff 24 days to show cause why the court\\nshould not grant summary judgment).\\n Nevertheless, that technical error does not compel a re-\\nmand. Summary judgment for Wexford was clearly appropri-\\nate because Gabb has no evidence of harm. A plaintiff can\\nbring a Monell-style claim against a private corporation acting\\nunder color of state law. Whiting v. Wexford Health Sources,\\nInc., 839 F.3d 658, 664 (7th Cir. 2016). To be liable, the corpo-\\nration must have “maintained an unconstitutional policy or\\ncustom.” Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768, 780 (7th Cir. 2015).\\nThat policy or custom must cause the injury that is the basis\\nof the plaintiff’s § 1983 claim. See Woodward v. Correctional\\nMed. Servs. of Ill., Inc., 368 F.3d 917, 928 (7th Cir. 2004). Because\\nGabb cannot show he suffered any injury based on his medi-\\ncal treatment at Lawrence, he cannot show any Wexford pol-\\nicy or custom harmed him. Accordingly, his claim against\\nWexford is bound to fail. As we know Gabb cannot win, we\\nwill not go through the pointless exercise of remanding the\\ncase. See Hassebrock v. Bernhoft, 815 F.3d 334, 343 n.3 (7th Cir.\\n2016) (declining to “remand a case for trial when we know the\\nplaintiffs cannot win,” calling it “a waste of time, money, and\\njudicial resources”).\\n III.\\n The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2591,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4630295,"string":"4,630,295"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"John Doe v. Kevin K. McAleenan"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-06-17"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"17-3521"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before RIPPLE, MANION, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Diane S. Sykes\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 17-3521\\nJOHN DOE,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nKEVIN K. MCALEENAN,\\nActing Secretary of Homeland Security, et al.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 17 C 4190 — John Robert Blakey, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED MARCH 28, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 17, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before RIPPLE, MANION, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.\\n SYKES, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff John Doe, an Iranian nation-\\nal, petitioned for conditional permanent residency in 2013.\\nHe used the EB-5 admission category, which offers visas for\\nimmigrants who invest in new job-creating enterprises. The\\nUnited States Citizenship and Immigration Service (“USCIS”\\nor “agency”) initially approved Doe’s petition but revoked\\nits approval roughly two years later.\\n\\f2 No. 17-3521\\n\\n Doe sought judicial review of the agency’s actions under\\nthe Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et\\nseq. But the district court concluded that Congress had\\nstripped its jurisdiction to review discretionary revocations\\nof visa petitions and dismissed Doe’s suit. See 8 U.S.C.\\n§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).\\n We affirm. Doe relies on the narrow jurisdictional gate-\\nway offered by Musunuru v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 880 (7th Cir.\\n2016). In Musunuru we held that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) doesn’t\\npreclude judicial review of purely procedural rulings during\\nthe adjudication of a visa petition. 831 F.3d at 887–88. But the\\nruling at issue here wasn’t procedural. Doe is challenging\\nthe agency’s substantive decision-making. And he cannot\\nevade a jurisdiction-stripping statute by repackaging his\\nsubstantive complaints as procedural objections.\\n I. Background\\n Congress allocates visas under the EB-5 admission cate-\\ngory for “qualified immigrants seeking to enter the United\\nStates for the purpose of engaging in a new commercial\\nenterprise.” 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(5)(A). To qualify, an alien\\nmust show that he “has invested … or[] is actively in the\\nprocess of investing” the minimum amount of capital and\\nthat his investment “will … create full-time employment for\\nnot fewer than 10 United States citizens or aliens lawfully\\nadmitted.” Id. The default capital requirement is $1 million,\\nbut $500,000 suffices for a project located in a “targeted\\nemployment area.” Id. § 1153(b)(5)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R.\\n§ 204.6(f)(2).\\n An alien seeking an EB-5 visa must file a petition using\\nForm I-526. 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(a). If the petition is approved, he\\n\\fNo. 17-3521 3\\n\\nreceives a conditional form of permanent-resident status.\\n8 U.S.C. § 1186b(a)(1). But the USCIS “may, at any time, for\\nwhat [it] deems to be good and sufficient cause,” revoke an\\napproved I-526 petition after providing notice and an oppor-\\ntunity to respond. See id. §§ 1155, 1154(a)(1)(H); 8 C.F.R.\\n§ 205.2. The agency’s final revocation notice must be in\\nwriting and “explain[] the specific reasons for the revoca-\\ntion.” 8 C.F.R. § 205.2(c).\\n John Doe submitted his petition on June 7, 2013. Doe and\\n23 other investors each deposited $500,000 in Golden Assist-\\ned Living EB-5 Fund, LLC, a “new commercial enterprise”\\nunder 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(j)(1). The enterprise, controlled by\\nAttorney Taher Kameli, loaned the pooled $12 million to\\nGolden Memory Care, Inc., which planned to construct an\\nassisted-living center in Lake Barrington, Illinois. In August\\n2013 the USCIS issued Doe a Request for Evidence seeking\\nadditional information about the project. Doe’s response\\nnotified the agency that the project had been “moved from\\nLake Barrington, Illinois to Fox Lake, Illinois, … due to\\nseveral unforeseen issues.” He claims that he provided an\\nupdated business plan and an Illinois state agency’s letter\\ncertifying Fox Lake as a targeted employment area.\\n The USCIS approved Doe’s petition on May 8, 2014, and\\nDoe requested a visa through the United States Consulate in\\nAbu Dhabi. But in January 2015, the State Department\\nreviewed Doe’s petition and returned it to the USCIS for\\nreview and possible revocation. The USCIS issued a Notice\\nof Intent to Revoke on January 11, 2016. The agency ex-\\nplained that revocation is appropriate where “material\\nchanges … , if unexplained and unrebutted, would warrant a\\ndenial of the approved visa petition.” The notice identified\\n\\f4 No. 17-3521\\n\\ntwo material changes. First, “[s]ubsequent to approving the\\npetition, [the] USCIS discovered information that contra-\\ndict[ed] evidence in the record”—namely, that the project\\nhad moved to Fox Lake. The agency asserted that Doe hadn’t\\nprovided a business plan or targeted employment area\\ncertification for the new location. Second, the record con-\\ntained no evidence that the Fox Lake center was under\\nconstruction or would create ten jobs.\\n Doe disputed the agency’s characterization. He had al-\\nready notified the USCIS that the project had been relocated\\nto Fox Lake, so the agency couldn’t have “discovered” that\\nfact after approving his petition. Doe claimed to have pro-\\nvided each piece of evidence the USCIS said was missing: an\\nupdated business plan, a targeted employment area certifica-\\ntion, and a job-creation report. Finally, he challenged the\\nlegal basis for the agency’s “material change” standard.\\n Unmoved, the agency issued a Notice of Revocation on\\nMarch 31, 2016. But it erroneously referenced a different\\nEB-5 project, also controlled by Kameli, that had relocated\\nfrom Waukegan, Illinois to West Dundee, Illinois. Doe\\nnotified the USCIS of its error, and the agency issued a\\ncorrected document on June 7.\\n The corrected Notice of Revocation explained that Doe,\\nas petitioner, bears the burden of establishing eligibility\\nunder the EB-5 program. And a petitioner’s eligibility must\\nbe assessed based on his initial I-526 petition. So if he “as-\\nserts eligibility under a materially different set of facts that\\nwere not the basis for eligibility when the petition was filed,\\nhe or she must file a new petition.” (Emphasis added.) Here,\\nDoe’s initial petition was based on a project in Lake Barring-\\nton. The USCIS again asserted that Doe “did not provide any\\n\\fNo. 17-3521 5\\n\\nupdates to the business plan or other evidence … that re-\\nflected the change of the location.” 1 The agency acknowl-\\nedged Doe’s response to the notice, in which he provided\\nevidence supporting the Fox Lake project’s EB-5 qualifica-\\ntions. But it reiterated that “the record did not include any of\\nthat evidence … when the petition was approved.” The\\nagency determined, “based on the entire record of proceed-\\ning,” that Doe was ineligible for an EB-5 visa. The USCIS\\nadvised Doe of his right to an administrative appeal under\\n8 C.F.R. § 205.2(d).\\n Rather than appeal the revocation, Doe filed a complaint\\nin the Northern District of Illinois seeking judicial review\\nunder the APA on two grounds. First, he alleged that the\\nUSCIS committed “legal error” by citing inaccurate infor-\\nmation and denying him “a meaningful opportunity to\\nrespond” to the Notice of Intent to Revoke. Second, he\\nclaimed that the USCIS “engaged in improper substantive\\nrule-making” by using a “material change” standard that\\nhadn’t undergone notice and comment.\\n The government moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) of\\nthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that §§ 1155\\nand 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bar judicial review of the revocation.\\nDoe responded that his complaint challenged the agency’s\\ncompliance with its mandatory procedures, not the sub-\\nstance of its decision, so the court retained jurisdiction under\\nMusunuru.\\n\\n\\n1 The agency failed to delete one of its erroneous references to the\\nKameli-controlled project that had relocated from Waukegan to West\\nDundee. In fact, the March and June documents are identical aside from\\nthe town names.\\n\\f6 No. 17-3521\\n\\n The district judge granted the motion, explaining that\\n§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) precludes judicial review of a discretionary\\nrevocation of an approved visa petition. While Musunuru\\ncreates a narrow exception for purely procedural challenges,\\n“a simple review of the complaint” revealed that Doe’s\\nclaims were “not procedural but substantive.” Doe appeals,\\nagain relying on Musunuru.\\n II. Discussion\\n We review a dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdic-\\ntion de novo, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of\\nthe plaintiff. Bultasa Buddhist Temple of Chi. v. Nielsen,\\n878 F.3d 570, 573 (7th Cir. 2017).\\n Under § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii),\\n no court shall have jurisdiction to review …\\n any … decision or action of the Attorney Gen-\\n eral or the Secretary of Homeland Security the\\n authority for which is specified under this sub-\\n chapter to be in the discretion of [that official],\\n other than the granting of relief under section\\n 1158(a) of this title.\\nIn El–Khader v. Monica, we held that revocations under\\n§ 1155 are discretionary “decision[s] or action[s]” within the\\nmeaning of § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). 366 F.3d 562, 567–68 (7th Cir.\\n2004).\\n The statute’s plain language compelled that conclusion:\\nThe Secretary, acting through the USCIS, “may, at any time,\\nfor what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke\\nthe approval of any petition approved by him under section\\n1154 of this title.” § 1155. It’s hard to imagine a clearer grant\\nof discretion. The statute says the Secretary “may” revoke a\\n\\fNo. 17-3521 7\\n\\npreviously approved visa petition “at any time” and for any\\nreason he “deems to be good and sufficient cause.” This\\nlanguage commits the revocation decision to the agency’s\\nsole and unreviewable discretion; a court has no standard by\\nwhich to test “good and sufficient cause.” El–Khader,\\n366 F.3d at 567.\\n We have repeated that analysis in subsequent cases. See\\nHoly Virgin Prot. Cathedral of the Russian Orthodox Church\\nOutside Russia v. Chertoff, 499 F.3d 658, 661 (7th Cir. 2007)\\n(explaining “that decisions to revoke visas previously ap-\\nproved under § 1154 are unequivocally committed to [agen-\\ncy] discretion”). And we recently reiterated that a plaintiff\\n“cannot avoid the jurisdictional bar … simply by raising a\\nclaim under … section [706] of the APA. Regardless of the\\nunderlying merits of the decision, we do not have jurisdic-\\ntion to review a discretionary revocation under § 1155.”\\nBultasa Buddhist Temple, 878 F.3d at 574 (citation omitted).\\n The USCIS revoked Doe’s petition under § 1155. And a\\npetition for conditional permanent residency under the EB-5\\nprogram is approved “under section 1154 of this title.” See\\n§ 1154(a)(1)(H). Doe concedes as much. So under\\n§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s\\nrevocation of his I-526 petition.\\n However, jurisdiction-stripping statutes don’t prohibit\\njudicial review of every dispute between the USCIS and\\napplicants for immigration benefits. In Calma v. Holder, we\\nconsidered § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), which bars judicial review of a\\ndefined set of immigration-agency actions, including remov-\\nal proceedings. 663 F.3d 868 (7th Cir. 2011). We explained\\nthat “there are identifiable circumstances under which a\\ncritical procedural step in a removal proceeding … lies within\\n\\f8 No. 17-3521\\n\\nour jurisdiction even though we are barred from evaluating\\nthe [agency’s] ultimate decision.” Id. at 876–77 (emphasis\\nadded). But we lack jurisdiction if “it is impossible to distin-\\nguish the challenged action from the determination on the\\nmerits.” Id. at 877. In other words, “judicial review is fore-\\nclosed … if the agency’s rationale for denying the procedural\\nrequest also establishes the petitioner’s inability to prevail on\\nthe merits of his underlying claim.” Id. at 876.\\n Doe rests his entire case on Musunuru v. Lynch, in which\\nwe imported Calma’s reasoning to the § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)\\ncontext. Srinivasa Musunuru had a temporary work authori-\\nzation when he sought permanent residency. 831 F.3d at\\n882–83. His employer, Vision Systems Group, filed a visa\\npetition and labor certification on his behalf. The USCIS\\napproved both. Id. at 884. Four years later Musunuru left\\nVision Systems for Crescent Solutions, which filed a re-\\nplacement petition. The agency approved that petition too.\\nBut when Vision Systems’ principals pleaded guilty to\\nunlawfully hiring aliens, the USCIS revoked the company’s\\nlabor certifications—including Musunuru’s. Id. at 885. The\\nagency mailed a Notice of Intent to Revoke to the defunct\\ncompany, so Musunuru never saw it. When Vision Systems\\ndidn’t respond, the agency notified Crescent Solutions that\\n“Musunuru’s work experience with [Vision Systems] was\\nnot genuine[,] and therefore the approval of Crescent Solu-\\ntions’ [visa] petition … should be revoked.” Id.\\n Musunuru submitted rebuttal evidence but the agency\\ndenied his visa petition. He moved for reconsideration,\\narguing that he should have received notice and an oppor-\\ntunity to respond to the notice mailed to Vision Systems. The\\nUSCIS concluded that Musunuru lacked standing to bring\\n\\fNo. 17-3521 9\\n\\nthat challenge because as the beneficiary of the petition, rather\\nthan the petitioner himself, he was not an “affected party”\\nentitled to notice under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(iii)(B).\\nMusunuru brought an APA suit. The USCIS argued that\\n§§ 1155 and 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) precluded judicial review. The\\ndistrict court found jurisdiction but dismissed the suit on the\\nmerits.\\n The agency repeated its jurisdictional argument on ap-\\npeal. Relying on Calma, we rejected it:\\n [The] USCIS’s rationale for denying Musunuru\\n these procedures was that he is not the peti-\\n tioner. That rationale, by itself, does not pre-\\n vent Musunuru from prevailing on the merits\\n of his underlying claim, which is that the I-140\\n petition filed on his behalf by [Vision Systems]\\n was not fraudulent and should not have been\\n revoked. Therefore, judicial review is not fore-\\n closed. In other words, [the] USCIS’s rationale\\n concerns only the regulatory procedures and\\n not the merits of its decision to revoke the peti-\\n tion. Musunuru does indeed contend that he\\n can prevail on the merits of his underlying\\n claim … , but we are not reviewing that con-\\n tention. On the contrary, we are reviewing\\n [the] USCIS’s decision to deny him the oppor-\\n tunity to challenge the revocation. Ergo, we\\n have jurisdiction to review Musunuru’s claims.\\nMusunuru, 831 F.3d at 887–88. Two other circuits reached\\nsimilar conclusions when confronting this specific procedur-\\nal issue. See Mantena v. Johnson, 809 F.3d 721, 729 (2d Cir.\\n\\f10 No. 17-3521\\n\\n2015); Kurapati v. U.S. Bureau of Citizenship & Immigration\\nServs., 775 F.3d 1255, 1262 (11th Cir. 2014).\\n In sum, we’ve recognized a narrow jurisdictional path for\\nchallenging purely procedural rulings. In Calma we asserted\\njurisdiction over discrete “procedural step[s].” 663 F.3d at\\n877 (citing as examples “the denial of a continuance … , the\\ndenial of a motion to reconsider, a refusal to remand, or a\\nrefusal to reopen a case”). So we can review the immigration\\nagency’s resolution of a specific procedural dispute during\\nan administrative adjudication. See Musunuru, 831 F.3d at\\n888. But even then we lack jurisdiction if the rationale under-\\nlying the agency’s procedural ruling would also resolve the\\nmerits of the petitioner’s application. Id. at 887 (quoting\\nCalma, 663 F.3d at 876).\\n Calma and Musunuru do not, however, open the door to\\nchallenging discretionary revocations on nominally “proce-\\ndural” grounds. Courts may review identifiable procedural\\nrulings that don’t implicate a petition’s merits. But a plaintiff\\ncannot sidestep § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) by artfully framing a\\nchallenge to the agency’s substantive decision as a proce-\\ndural claim. Imagine the USCIS asks a visa applicant to\\nverify a fact supporting his EB-5 petition. The applicant\\nresponds with a self-prepared affidavit. Unconvinced, the\\nagency revokes the petition anyway. The alien might frame\\nan APA complaint in “procedural” terms, alleging that the\\nUSCIS violated its own regulations by failing to consider his\\naffidavit. But at bottom that’s a substantive challenge to the\\nagency’s weighing of the evidence, which Congress has\\nimmunized from judicial scrutiny.\\n Doe alleges that the USCIS violated several regulations\\ngoverning the revocation process. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 205.2(b)–\\n\\fNo. 17-3521 11\\n\\n(c), 103.2(b)(16)(i). He also cites a pair of agency opinions\\nrestating the regulatory language. See In re Arias, 19 I. & N.\\nDec. 568 (BIA 1988); In re Estime, 19 I. & N. Dec. 450 (BIA\\n1987). The regulations address the basic notice-and-response\\nrequirements that the USCIS must follow when deciding\\nwhether to revoke a visa petition. Everyone agrees that the\\nagency formally complied with those regulations. It gave\\nDoe an opportunity to rebut the Notice of Intent to Revoke,\\nand it provided a written explanation of its reasoning in the\\nNotice of Revocation.\\n Doe concedes that the USCIS followed this procedural\\nframework. He maintains that his opportunity for response\\nwas an empty formality: by incorrectly stating the facts and\\nthe law, the agency denied him a “legitimate opportunity to\\nchallenge” the revocation. He also argues that the language\\nused in the Notice of Intent to Revoke and Notice of Revoca-\\ntion betrays underlying procedural violations. As he sees it,\\neven a facial review of the agency’s papers would reveal that\\nthe USCIS disregarded its own procedures.\\n But § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars us from combing the substance\\nof the agency’s decision in search of a lurking procedural\\nviolation. To overcome the jurisdictional bar, Doe has re-\\npackaged a set of substantive complaints about the merits of\\nthe agency’s action as a set of procedural violations. Unlike\\nin Musunuru where the USCIS denied the petitioner “the\\nopportunity to challenge the revocation,” the agency did not\\n“deny[] [Doe] … procedures,” such as notice, an opportunity\\nto respond, or an administrative appeal. See 831 F.3d at 887–\\n88 (emphasis added). Nor did it make an identifiable proce-\\ndural ruling that might arguably qualify for review under\\nMusunuru. The USCIS simply evaluated the “entire record of\\n\\f12 No. 17-3521\\n\\nproceeding” in Doe’s case and revoked his petition for what\\nit deemed “good and sufficient cause.”\\n For all his “procedural” framing, what Doe really wants is\\njudicial review of the revocation under the APA’s arbitrary-\\nand-capricious standard. See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). Indeed, his\\narguments mirror the factors we consider when applying\\nthat standard of review. See Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S.,\\nInc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)\\n(examining whether the agency “offered an explanation …\\nthat runs counter to the evidence … or is so implausible that\\nit could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product\\nof agency expertise”). We’ve already established that courts\\ncannot use that standard to evaluate discretionary revoca-\\ntions under § 1155. See Bultasa Buddhist Temple, 878 F.3d at\\n574 (citing El–Khader, 366 F.3d at 565).\\n Taken to its logical conclusion, Doe’s approach would\\neviscerate § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). Any petitioner dissatisfied with\\na final agency decision could secure judicial review by\\nalleging that the agency committed a procedural violation by\\noverlooking favorable evidence. Musunuru doesn’t stand for\\nthat proposition, and we won’t adopt it here. Doe’s com-\\nplaint challenges the agency’s substantive decision-making,\\nnot its application of a procedural rule during administrative\\nadjudication. Merely citing the Code of Federal Regulations\\ndoesn’t convert a substantive challenge into a procedural\\none. The district court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is\\n AFFIRMED.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4407548/\", \"author_raw\": \"Diane S. Sykes\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"RIPPLE"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"MANION"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"SYKES"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"RIPPLE\": \", Circuit\", \"MANION\": \", Circuit\", \"SYKES\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4630295/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":6,"string":"6"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: John Doe v. Kevin K. McAleenan\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-06-17\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 17-3521\nJOHN DOE,\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\n v.\n\nKEVIN K. MCALEENAN,\nActing Secretary of Homeland Security, et al.,\n Defendants-Appellees.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 17 C 4190 — John Robert Blakey, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED MARCH 28, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 17, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before RIPPLE, MANION, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.\n SYKES, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff John Doe, an Iranian nation-\nal, petitioned for conditional permanent residency in 2013.\nHe used the EB-5 admission category, which offers visas for\nimmigrants who invest in new job-creating enterprises. The\nUnited States Citizenship and Immigration Service (“USCIS”\nor “agency”) initially approved Doe’s petition but revoked\nits approval roughly two years later.\n\f2 No. 17-3521\n\n Doe sought judicial review of the agency’s actions under\nthe Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et\nseq. But the district court concluded that Congress had\nstripped its jurisdiction to review discretionary revocations\nof visa petitions and dismissed Doe’s suit. See 8 U.S.C.\n§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).\n We affirm. Doe relies on the narrow jurisdictional gate-\nway offered by Musunuru v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 880 (7th Cir.\n2016). In Musunuru we held that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) doesn’t\npreclude judicial review of purely procedural rulings during\nthe adjudication of a visa petition. 831 F.3d at 887–88. But the\nruling at issue here wasn’t procedural. Doe is challenging\nthe agency’s substantive decision-making. And he cannot\nevade a jurisdiction-stripping statute by repackaging his\nsubstantive complaints as procedural objections.\n I. Background\n Congress allocates visas under the EB-5 admission cate-\ngory for “qualified immigrants seeking to enter the United\nStates for the purpose of engaging in a new commercial\nenterprise.” 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(5)(A). To qualify, an alien\nmust show that he “has invested … or[] is actively in the\nprocess of investing” the minimum amount of capital and\nthat his investment “will … create full-time employment for\nnot fewer than 10 United States citizens or aliens lawfully\nadmitted.” Id. The default capital requirement is $1 million,\nbut $500,000 suffices for a project located in a “targeted\nemployment area.” Id. § 1153(b)(5)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R.\n§ 204.6(f)(2).\n An alien seeking an EB-5 visa must file a petition using\nForm I-526. 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(a). If the petition is approved, he\n\fNo. 17-3521 3\n\nreceives a conditional form of permanent-resident status.\n8 U.S.C. § 1186b(a)(1). But the USCIS “may, at any time, for\nwhat [it] deems to be good and sufficient cause,” revoke an\napproved I-526 petition after providing notice and an oppor-\ntunity to respond. See id. §§ 1155, 1154(a)(1)(H); 8 C.F.R.\n§ 205.2. The agency’s final revocation notice must be in\nwriting and “explain[] the specific reasons for the revoca-\ntion.” 8 C.F.R. § 205.2(c).\n John Doe submitted his petition on June 7, 2013. Doe and\n23 other investors each deposited $500,000 in Golden Assist-\ned Living EB-5 Fund, LLC, a “new commercial enterprise”\nunder 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(j)(1). The enterprise, controlled by\nAttorney Taher Kameli, loaned the pooled $12 million to\nGolden Memory Care, Inc., which planned to construct an\nassisted-living center in Lake Barrington, Illinois. In August\n2013 the USCIS issued Doe a Request for Evidence seeking\nadditional information about the project. Doe’s response\nnotified the agency that the project had been “moved from\nLake Barrington, Illinois to Fox Lake, Illinois, … due to\nseveral unforeseen issues.” He claims that he provided an\nupdated business plan and an Illinois state agency’s letter\ncertifying Fox Lake as a targeted employment area.\n The USCIS approved Doe’s petition on May 8, 2014, and\nDoe requested a visa through the United States Consulate in\nAbu Dhabi. But in January 2015, the State Department\nreviewed Doe’s petition and returned it to the USCIS for\nreview and possible revocation. The USCIS issued a Notice\nof Intent to Revoke on January 11, 2016. The agency ex-\nplained that revocation is appropriate where “material\nchanges … , if unexplained and unrebutted, would warrant a\ndenial of the approved visa petition.” The notice identified\n\f4 No. 17-3521\n\ntwo material changes. First, “[s]ubsequent to approving the\npetition, [the] USCIS discovered information that contra-\ndict[ed] evidence in the record”—namely, that the project\nhad moved to Fox Lake. The agency asserted that Doe hadn’t\nprovided a business plan or targeted employment area\ncertification for the new location. Second, the record con-\ntained no evidence that the Fox Lake center was under\nconstruction or would create ten jobs.\n Doe disputed the agency’s characterization. He had al-\nready notified the USCIS that the project had been relocated\nto Fox Lake, so the agency couldn’t have “discovered” that\nfact after approving his petition. Doe claimed to have pro-\nvided each piece of evidence the USCIS said was missing: an\nupdated business plan, a targeted employment area certifica-\ntion, and a job-creation report. Finally, he challenged the\nlegal basis for the agency’s “material change” standard.\n Unmoved, the agency issued a Notice of Revocation on\nMarch 31, 2016. But it erroneously referenced a different\nEB-5 project, also controlled by Kameli, that had relocated\nfrom Waukegan, Illinois to West Dundee, Illinois. Doe\nnotified the USCIS of its error, and the agency issued a\ncorrected document on June 7.\n The corrected Notice of Revocation explained that Doe,\nas petitioner, bears the burden of establishing eligibility\nunder the EB-5 program. And a petitioner’s eligibility must\nbe assessed based on his initial I-526 petition. So if he “as-\nserts eligibility under a materially different set of facts that\nwere not the basis for eligibility when the petition was filed,\nhe or she must file a new petition.” (Emphasis added.) Here,\nDoe’s initial petition was based on a project in Lake Barring-\nton. The USCIS again asserted that Doe “did not provide any\n\fNo. 17-3521 5\n\nupdates to the business plan or other evidence … that re-\nflected the change of the location.” 1 The agency acknowl-\nedged Doe’s response to the notice, in which he provided\nevidence supporting the Fox Lake project’s EB-5 qualifica-\ntions. But it reiterated that “the record did not include any of\nthat evidence … when the petition was approved.” The\nagency determined, “based on the entire record of proceed-\ning,” that Doe was ineligible for an EB-5 visa. The USCIS\nadvised Doe of his right to an administrative appeal under\n8 C.F.R. § 205.2(d).\n Rather than appeal the revocation, Doe filed a complaint\nin the Northern District of Illinois seeking judicial review\nunder the APA on two grounds. First, he alleged that the\nUSCIS committed “legal error” by citing inaccurate infor-\nmation and denying him “a meaningful opportunity to\nrespond” to the Notice of Intent to Revoke. Second, he\nclaimed that the USCIS “engaged in improper substantive\nrule-making” by using a “material change” standard that\nhadn’t undergone notice and comment.\n The government moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) of\nthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that §§ 1155\nand 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bar judicial review of the revocation.\nDoe responded that his complaint challenged the agency’s\ncompliance with its mandatory procedures, not the sub-\nstance of its decision, so the court retained jurisdiction under\nMusunuru.\n\n\n1 The agency failed to delete one of its erroneous references to the\nKameli-controlled project that had relocated from Waukegan to West\nDundee. In fact, the March and June documents are identical aside from\nthe town names.\n\f6 No. 17-3521\n\n The district judge granted the motion, explaining that\n§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) precludes judicial review of a discretionary\nrevocation of an approved visa petition. While Musunuru\ncreates a narrow exception for purely procedural challenges,\n“a simple review of the complaint” revealed that Doe’s\nclaims were “not procedural but substantive.” Doe appeals,\nagain relying on Musunuru.\n II. Discussion\n We review a dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdic-\ntion de novo, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of\nthe plaintiff. Bultasa Buddhist Temple of Chi. v. Nielsen,\n878 F.3d 570, 573 (7th Cir. 2017).\n Under § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii),\n no court shall have jurisdiction to review …\n any … decision or action of the Attorney Gen-\n eral or the Secretary of Homeland Security the\n authority for which is specified under this sub-\n chapter to be in the discretion of [that official],\n other than the granting of relief under section\n 1158(a) of this title.\nIn El–Khader v. Monica, we held that revocations under\n§ 1155 are discretionary “decision[s] or action[s]” within the\nmeaning of § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). 366 F.3d 562, 567–68 (7th Cir.\n2004).\n The statute’s plain language compelled that conclusion:\nThe Secretary, acting through the USCIS, “may, at any time,\nfor what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke\nthe approval of any petition approved by him under section\n1154 of this title.” § 1155. It’s hard to imagine a clearer grant\nof discretion. The statute says the Secretary “may” revoke a\n\fNo. 17-3521 7\n\npreviously approved visa petition “at any time” and for any\nreason he “deems to be good and sufficient cause.” This\nlanguage commits the revocation decision to the agency’s\nsole and unreviewable discretion; a court has no standard by\nwhich to test “good and sufficient cause.” El–Khader,\n366 F.3d at 567.\n We have repeated that analysis in subsequent cases. See\nHoly Virgin Prot. Cathedral of the Russian Orthodox Church\nOutside Russia v. Chertoff, 499 F.3d 658, 661 (7th Cir. 2007)\n(explaining “that decisions to revoke visas previously ap-\nproved under § 1154 are unequivocally committed to [agen-\ncy] discretion”). And we recently reiterated that a plaintiff\n“cannot avoid the jurisdictional bar … simply by raising a\nclaim under … section [706] of the APA. Regardless of the\nunderlying merits of the decision, we do not have jurisdic-\ntion to review a discretionary revocation under § 1155.”\nBultasa Buddhist Temple, 878 F.3d at 574 (citation omitted).\n The USCIS revoked Doe’s petition under § 1155. And a\npetition for conditional permanent residency under the EB-5\nprogram is approved “under section 1154 of this title.” See\n§ 1154(a)(1)(H). Doe concedes as much. So under\n§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s\nrevocation of his I-526 petition.\n However, jurisdiction-stripping statutes don’t prohibit\njudicial review of every dispute between the USCIS and\napplicants for immigration benefits. In Calma v. Holder, we\nconsidered § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), which bars judicial review of a\ndefined set of immigration-agency actions, including remov-\nal proceedings. 663 F.3d 868 (7th Cir. 2011). We explained\nthat “there are identifiable circumstances under which a\ncritical procedural step in a removal proceeding … lies within\n\f8 No. 17-3521\n\nour jurisdiction even though we are barred from evaluating\nthe [agency’s] ultimate decision.” Id. at 876–77 (emphasis\nadded). But we lack jurisdiction if “it is impossible to distin-\nguish the challenged action from the determination on the\nmerits.” Id. at 877. In other words, “judicial review is fore-\nclosed … if the agency’s rationale for denying the procedural\nrequest also establishes the petitioner’s inability to prevail on\nthe merits of his underlying claim.” Id. at 876.\n Doe rests his entire case on Musunuru v. Lynch, in which\nwe imported Calma’s reasoning to the § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)\ncontext. Srinivasa Musunuru had a temporary work authori-\nzation when he sought permanent residency. 831 F.3d at\n882–83. His employer, Vision Systems Group, filed a visa\npetition and labor certification on his behalf. The USCIS\napproved both. Id. at 884. Four years later Musunuru left\nVision Systems for Crescent Solutions, which filed a re-\nplacement petition. The agency approved that petition too.\nBut when Vision Systems’ principals pleaded guilty to\nunlawfully hiring aliens, the USCIS revoked the company’s\nlabor certifications—including Musunuru’s. Id. at 885. The\nagency mailed a Notice of Intent to Revoke to the defunct\ncompany, so Musunuru never saw it. When Vision Systems\ndidn’t respond, the agency notified Crescent Solutions that\n“Musunuru’s work experience with [Vision Systems] was\nnot genuine[,] and therefore the approval of Crescent Solu-\ntions’ [visa] petition … should be revoked.” Id.\n Musunuru submitted rebuttal evidence but the agency\ndenied his visa petition. He moved for reconsideration,\narguing that he should have received notice and an oppor-\ntunity to respond to the notice mailed to Vision Systems. The\nUSCIS concluded that Musunuru lacked standing to bring\n\fNo. 17-3521 9\n\nthat challenge because as the beneficiary of the petition, rather\nthan the petitioner himself, he was not an “affected party”\nentitled to notice under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(iii)(B).\nMusunuru brought an APA suit. The USCIS argued that\n§§ 1155 and 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) precluded judicial review. The\ndistrict court found jurisdiction but dismissed the suit on the\nmerits.\n The agency repeated its jurisdictional argument on ap-\npeal. Relying on Calma, we rejected it:\n [The] USCIS’s rationale for denying Musunuru\n these procedures was that he is not the peti-\n tioner. That rationale, by itself, does not pre-\n vent Musunuru from prevailing on the merits\n of his underlying claim, which is that the I-140\n petition filed on his behalf by [Vision Systems]\n was not fraudulent and should not have been\n revoked. Therefore, judicial review is not fore-\n closed. In other words, [the] USCIS’s rationale\n concerns only the regulatory procedures and\n not the merits of its decision to revoke the peti-\n tion. Musunuru does indeed contend that he\n can prevail on the merits of his underlying\n claim … , but we are not reviewing that con-\n tention. On the contrary, we are reviewing\n [the] USCIS’s decision to deny him the oppor-\n tunity to challenge the revocation. Ergo, we\n have jurisdiction to review Musunuru’s claims.\nMusunuru, 831 F.3d at 887–88. Two other circuits reached\nsimilar conclusions when confronting this specific procedur-\nal issue. See Mantena v. Johnson, 809 F.3d 721, 729 (2d Cir.\n\f10 No. 17-3521\n\n2015); Kurapati v. U.S. Bureau of Citizenship & Immigration\nServs., 775 F.3d 1255, 1262 (11th Cir. 2014).\n In sum, we’ve recognized a narrow jurisdictional path for\nchallenging purely procedural rulings. In Calma we asserted\njurisdiction over discrete “procedural step[s].” 663 F.3d at\n877 (citing as examples “the denial of a continuance … , the\ndenial of a motion to reconsider, a refusal to remand, or a\nrefusal to reopen a case”). So we can review the immigration\nagency’s resolution of a specific procedural dispute during\nan administrative adjudication. See Musunuru, 831 F.3d at\n888. But even then we lack jurisdiction if the rationale under-\nlying the agency’s procedural ruling would also resolve the\nmerits of the petitioner’s application. Id. at 887 (quoting\nCalma, 663 F.3d at 876).\n Calma and Musunuru do not, however, open the door to\nchallenging discretionary revocations on nominally “proce-\ndural” grounds. Courts may review identifiable procedural\nrulings that don’t implicate a petition’s merits. But a plaintiff\ncannot sidestep § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) by artfully framing a\nchallenge to the agency’s substantive decision as a proce-\ndural claim. Imagine the USCIS asks a visa applicant to\nverify a fact supporting his EB-5 petition. The applicant\nresponds with a self-prepared affidavit. Unconvinced, the\nagency revokes the petition anyway. The alien might frame\nan APA complaint in “procedural” terms, alleging that the\nUSCIS violated its own regulations by failing to consider his\naffidavit. But at bottom that’s a substantive challenge to the\nagency’s weighing of the evidence, which Congress has\nimmunized from judicial scrutiny.\n Doe alleges that the USCIS violated several regulations\ngoverning the revocation process. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 205.2(b)–\n\fNo. 17-3521 11\n\n(c), 103.2(b)(16)(i). He also cites a pair of agency opinions\nrestating the regulatory language. See In re Arias, 19 I. & N.\nDec. 568 (BIA 1988); In re Estime, 19 I. & N. Dec. 450 (BIA\n1987). The regulations address the basic notice-and-response\nrequirements that the USCIS must follow when deciding\nwhether to revoke a visa petition. Everyone agrees that the\nagency formally complied with those regulations. It gave\nDoe an opportunity to rebut the Notice of Intent to Revoke,\nand it provided a written explanation of its reasoning in the\nNotice of Revocation.\n Doe concedes that the USCIS followed this procedural\nframework. He maintains that his opportunity for response\nwas an empty formality: by incorrectly stating the facts and\nthe law, the agency denied him a “legitimate opportunity to\nchallenge” the revocation. He also argues that the language\nused in the Notice of Intent to Revoke and Notice of Revoca-\ntion betrays underlying procedural violations. As he sees it,\neven a facial review of the agency’s papers would reveal that\nthe USCIS disregarded its own procedures.\n But § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars us from combing the substance\nof the agency’s decision in search of a lurking procedural\nviolation. To overcome the jurisdictional bar, Doe has re-\npackaged a set of substantive complaints about the merits of\nthe agency’s action as a set of procedural violations. Unlike\nin Musunuru where the USCIS denied the petitioner “the\nopportunity to challenge the revocation,” the agency did not\n“deny[] [Doe] … procedures,” such as notice, an opportunity\nto respond, or an administrative appeal. See 831 F.3d at 887–\n88 (emphasis added). Nor did it make an identifiable proce-\ndural ruling that might arguably qualify for review under\nMusunuru. The USCIS simply evaluated the “entire record of\n\f12 No. 17-3521\n\nproceeding” in Doe’s case and revoked his petition for what\nit deemed “good and sufficient cause.”\n For all his “procedural” framing, what Doe really wants is\njudicial review of the revocation under the APA’s arbitrary-\nand-capricious standard. See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). Indeed, his\narguments mirror the factors we consider when applying\nthat standard of review. See Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S.,\nInc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)\n(examining whether the agency “offered an explanation …\nthat runs counter to the evidence … or is so implausible that\nit could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product\nof agency expertise”). We’ve already established that courts\ncannot use that standard to evaluate discretionary revoca-\ntions under § 1155. See Bultasa Buddhist Temple, 878 F.3d at\n574 (citing El–Khader, 366 F.3d at 565).\n Taken to its logical conclusion, Doe’s approach would\neviscerate § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). Any petitioner dissatisfied with\na final agency decision could secure judicial review by\nalleging that the agency committed a procedural violation by\noverlooking favorable evidence. Musunuru doesn’t stand for\nthat proposition, and we won’t adopt it here. Doe’s com-\nplaint challenges the agency’s substantive decision-making,\nnot its application of a procedural rule during administrative\nadjudication. Merely citing the Code of Federal Regulations\ndoesn’t convert a substantive challenge into a procedural\none. The district court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is\n AFFIRMED.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: John Doe v. Kevin K. McAleenan\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-06-17\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 17-3521\\nJOHN DOE,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nKEVIN K. MCALEENAN,\\nActing Secretary of Homeland Security, et al.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 17 C 4190 — John Robert Blakey, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED MARCH 28, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 17, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before RIPPLE, MANION, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.\\n SYKES, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff John Doe, an Iranian nation-\\nal, petitioned for conditional permanent residency in 2013.\\nHe used the EB-5 admission category, which offers visas for\\nimmigrants who invest in new job-creating enterprises. The\\nUnited States Citizenship and Immigration Service (“USCIS”\\nor “agency”) initially approved Doe’s petition but revoked\\nits approval roughly two years later.\\n\\f2 No. 17-3521\\n\\n Doe sought judicial review of the agency’s actions under\\nthe Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et\\nseq. But the district court concluded that Congress had\\nstripped its jurisdiction to review discretionary revocations\\nof visa petitions and dismissed Doe’s suit. See 8 U.S.C.\\n§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).\\n We affirm. Doe relies on the narrow jurisdictional gate-\\nway offered by Musunuru v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 880 (7th Cir.\\n2016). In Musunuru we held that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) doesn’t\\npreclude judicial review of purely procedural rulings during\\nthe adjudication of a visa petition. 831 F.3d at 887–88. But the\\nruling at issue here wasn’t procedural. Doe is challenging\\nthe agency’s substantive decision-making. And he cannot\\nevade a jurisdiction-stripping statute by repackaging his\\nsubstantive complaints as procedural objections.\\n I. Background\\n Congress allocates visas under the EB-5 admission cate-\\ngory for “qualified immigrants seeking to enter the United\\nStates for the purpose of engaging in a new commercial\\nenterprise.” 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(5)(A). To qualify, an alien\\nmust show that he “has invested … or[] is actively in the\\nprocess of investing” the minimum amount of capital and\\nthat his investment “will … create full-time employment for\\nnot fewer than 10 United States citizens or aliens lawfully\\nadmitted.” Id. The default capital requirement is $1 million,\\nbut $500,000 suffices for a project located in a “targeted\\nemployment area.” Id. § 1153(b)(5)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R.\\n§ 204.6(f)(2).\\n An alien seeking an EB-5 visa must file a petition using\\nForm I-526. 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(a). If the petition is approved, he\\n\\fNo. 17-3521 3\\n\\nreceives a conditional form of permanent-resident status.\\n8 U.S.C. § 1186b(a)(1). But the USCIS “may, at any time, for\\nwhat [it] deems to be good and sufficient cause,” revoke an\\napproved I-526 petition after providing notice and an oppor-\\ntunity to respond. See id. §§ 1155, 1154(a)(1)(H); 8 C.F.R.\\n§ 205.2. The agency’s final revocation notice must be in\\nwriting and “explain[] the specific reasons for the revoca-\\ntion.” 8 C.F.R. § 205.2(c).\\n John Doe submitted his petition on June 7, 2013. Doe and\\n23 other investors each deposited $500,000 in Golden Assist-\\ned Living EB-5 Fund, LLC, a “new commercial enterprise”\\nunder 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(j)(1). The enterprise, controlled by\\nAttorney Taher Kameli, loaned the pooled $12 million to\\nGolden Memory Care, Inc., which planned to construct an\\nassisted-living center in Lake Barrington, Illinois. In August\\n2013 the USCIS issued Doe a Request for Evidence seeking\\nadditional information about the project. Doe’s response\\nnotified the agency that the project had been “moved from\\nLake Barrington, Illinois to Fox Lake, Illinois, … due to\\nseveral unforeseen issues.” He claims that he provided an\\nupdated business plan and an Illinois state agency’s letter\\ncertifying Fox Lake as a targeted employment area.\\n The USCIS approved Doe’s petition on May 8, 2014, and\\nDoe requested a visa through the United States Consulate in\\nAbu Dhabi. But in January 2015, the State Department\\nreviewed Doe’s petition and returned it to the USCIS for\\nreview and possible revocation. The USCIS issued a Notice\\nof Intent to Revoke on January 11, 2016. The agency ex-\\nplained that revocation is appropriate where “material\\nchanges … , if unexplained and unrebutted, would warrant a\\ndenial of the approved visa petition.” The notice identified\\n\\f4 No. 17-3521\\n\\ntwo material changes. First, “[s]ubsequent to approving the\\npetition, [the] USCIS discovered information that contra-\\ndict[ed] evidence in the record”—namely, that the project\\nhad moved to Fox Lake. The agency asserted that Doe hadn’t\\nprovided a business plan or targeted employment area\\ncertification for the new location. Second, the record con-\\ntained no evidence that the Fox Lake center was under\\nconstruction or would create ten jobs.\\n Doe disputed the agency’s characterization. He had al-\\nready notified the USCIS that the project had been relocated\\nto Fox Lake, so the agency couldn’t have “discovered” that\\nfact after approving his petition. Doe claimed to have pro-\\nvided each piece of evidence the USCIS said was missing: an\\nupdated business plan, a targeted employment area certifica-\\ntion, and a job-creation report. Finally, he challenged the\\nlegal basis for the agency’s “material change” standard.\\n Unmoved, the agency issued a Notice of Revocation on\\nMarch 31, 2016. But it erroneously referenced a different\\nEB-5 project, also controlled by Kameli, that had relocated\\nfrom Waukegan, Illinois to West Dundee, Illinois. Doe\\nnotified the USCIS of its error, and the agency issued a\\ncorrected document on June 7.\\n The corrected Notice of Revocation explained that Doe,\\nas petitioner, bears the burden of establishing eligibility\\nunder the EB-5 program. And a petitioner’s eligibility must\\nbe assessed based on his initial I-526 petition. So if he “as-\\nserts eligibility under a materially different set of facts that\\nwere not the basis for eligibility when the petition was filed,\\nhe or she must file a new petition.” (Emphasis added.) Here,\\nDoe’s initial petition was based on a project in Lake Barring-\\nton. The USCIS again asserted that Doe “did not provide any\\n\\fNo. 17-3521 5\\n\\nupdates to the business plan or other evidence … that re-\\nflected the change of the location.” 1 The agency acknowl-\\nedged Doe’s response to the notice, in which he provided\\nevidence supporting the Fox Lake project’s EB-5 qualifica-\\ntions. But it reiterated that “the record did not include any of\\nthat evidence … when the petition was approved.” The\\nagency determined, “based on the entire record of proceed-\\ning,” that Doe was ineligible for an EB-5 visa. The USCIS\\nadvised Doe of his right to an administrative appeal under\\n8 C.F.R. § 205.2(d).\\n Rather than appeal the revocation, Doe filed a complaint\\nin the Northern District of Illinois seeking judicial review\\nunder the APA on two grounds. First, he alleged that the\\nUSCIS committed “legal error” by citing inaccurate infor-\\nmation and denying him “a meaningful opportunity to\\nrespond” to the Notice of Intent to Revoke. Second, he\\nclaimed that the USCIS “engaged in improper substantive\\nrule-making” by using a “material change” standard that\\nhadn’t undergone notice and comment.\\n The government moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) of\\nthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that §§ 1155\\nand 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bar judicial review of the revocation.\\nDoe responded that his complaint challenged the agency’s\\ncompliance with its mandatory procedures, not the sub-\\nstance of its decision, so the court retained jurisdiction under\\nMusunuru.\\n\\n\\n1 The agency failed to delete one of its erroneous references to the\\nKameli-controlled project that had relocated from Waukegan to West\\nDundee. In fact, the March and June documents are identical aside from\\nthe town names.\\n\\f6 No. 17-3521\\n\\n The district judge granted the motion, explaining that\\n§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) precludes judicial review of a discretionary\\nrevocation of an approved visa petition. While Musunuru\\ncreates a narrow exception for purely procedural challenges,\\n“a simple review of the complaint” revealed that Doe’s\\nclaims were “not procedural but substantive.” Doe appeals,\\nagain relying on Musunuru.\\n II. Discussion\\n We review a dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdic-\\ntion de novo, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of\\nthe plaintiff. Bultasa Buddhist Temple of Chi. v. Nielsen,\\n878 F.3d 570, 573 (7th Cir. 2017).\\n Under § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii),\\n no court shall have jurisdiction to review …\\n any … decision or action of the Attorney Gen-\\n eral or the Secretary of Homeland Security the\\n authority for which is specified under this sub-\\n chapter to be in the discretion of [that official],\\n other than the granting of relief under section\\n 1158(a) of this title.\\nIn El–Khader v. Monica, we held that revocations under\\n§ 1155 are discretionary “decision[s] or action[s]” within the\\nmeaning of § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). 366 F.3d 562, 567–68 (7th Cir.\\n2004).\\n The statute’s plain language compelled that conclusion:\\nThe Secretary, acting through the USCIS, “may, at any time,\\nfor what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke\\nthe approval of any petition approved by him under section\\n1154 of this title.” § 1155. It’s hard to imagine a clearer grant\\nof discretion. The statute says the Secretary “may” revoke a\\n\\fNo. 17-3521 7\\n\\npreviously approved visa petition “at any time” and for any\\nreason he “deems to be good and sufficient cause.” This\\nlanguage commits the revocation decision to the agency’s\\nsole and unreviewable discretion; a court has no standard by\\nwhich to test “good and sufficient cause.” El–Khader,\\n366 F.3d at 567.\\n We have repeated that analysis in subsequent cases. See\\nHoly Virgin Prot. Cathedral of the Russian Orthodox Church\\nOutside Russia v. Chertoff, 499 F.3d 658, 661 (7th Cir. 2007)\\n(explaining “that decisions to revoke visas previously ap-\\nproved under § 1154 are unequivocally committed to [agen-\\ncy] discretion”). And we recently reiterated that a plaintiff\\n“cannot avoid the jurisdictional bar … simply by raising a\\nclaim under … section [706] of the APA. Regardless of the\\nunderlying merits of the decision, we do not have jurisdic-\\ntion to review a discretionary revocation under § 1155.”\\nBultasa Buddhist Temple, 878 F.3d at 574 (citation omitted).\\n The USCIS revoked Doe’s petition under § 1155. And a\\npetition for conditional permanent residency under the EB-5\\nprogram is approved “under section 1154 of this title.” See\\n§ 1154(a)(1)(H). Doe concedes as much. So under\\n§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s\\nrevocation of his I-526 petition.\\n However, jurisdiction-stripping statutes don’t prohibit\\njudicial review of every dispute between the USCIS and\\napplicants for immigration benefits. In Calma v. Holder, we\\nconsidered § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), which bars judicial review of a\\ndefined set of immigration-agency actions, including remov-\\nal proceedings. 663 F.3d 868 (7th Cir. 2011). We explained\\nthat “there are identifiable circumstances under which a\\ncritical procedural step in a removal proceeding … lies within\\n\\f8 No. 17-3521\\n\\nour jurisdiction even though we are barred from evaluating\\nthe [agency’s] ultimate decision.” Id. at 876–77 (emphasis\\nadded). But we lack jurisdiction if “it is impossible to distin-\\nguish the challenged action from the determination on the\\nmerits.” Id. at 877. In other words, “judicial review is fore-\\nclosed … if the agency’s rationale for denying the procedural\\nrequest also establishes the petitioner’s inability to prevail on\\nthe merits of his underlying claim.” Id. at 876.\\n Doe rests his entire case on Musunuru v. Lynch, in which\\nwe imported Calma’s reasoning to the § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)\\ncontext. Srinivasa Musunuru had a temporary work authori-\\nzation when he sought permanent residency. 831 F.3d at\\n882–83. His employer, Vision Systems Group, filed a visa\\npetition and labor certification on his behalf. The USCIS\\napproved both. Id. at 884. Four years later Musunuru left\\nVision Systems for Crescent Solutions, which filed a re-\\nplacement petition. The agency approved that petition too.\\nBut when Vision Systems’ principals pleaded guilty to\\nunlawfully hiring aliens, the USCIS revoked the company’s\\nlabor certifications—including Musunuru’s. Id. at 885. The\\nagency mailed a Notice of Intent to Revoke to the defunct\\ncompany, so Musunuru never saw it. When Vision Systems\\ndidn’t respond, the agency notified Crescent Solutions that\\n“Musunuru’s work experience with [Vision Systems] was\\nnot genuine[,] and therefore the approval of Crescent Solu-\\ntions’ [visa] petition … should be revoked.” Id.\\n Musunuru submitted rebuttal evidence but the agency\\ndenied his visa petition. He moved for reconsideration,\\narguing that he should have received notice and an oppor-\\ntunity to respond to the notice mailed to Vision Systems. The\\nUSCIS concluded that Musunuru lacked standing to bring\\n\\fNo. 17-3521 9\\n\\nthat challenge because as the beneficiary of the petition, rather\\nthan the petitioner himself, he was not an “affected party”\\nentitled to notice under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(iii)(B).\\nMusunuru brought an APA suit. The USCIS argued that\\n§§ 1155 and 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) precluded judicial review. The\\ndistrict court found jurisdiction but dismissed the suit on the\\nmerits.\\n The agency repeated its jurisdictional argument on ap-\\npeal. Relying on Calma, we rejected it:\\n [The] USCIS’s rationale for denying Musunuru\\n these procedures was that he is not the peti-\\n tioner. That rationale, by itself, does not pre-\\n vent Musunuru from prevailing on the merits\\n of his underlying claim, which is that the I-140\\n petition filed on his behalf by [Vision Systems]\\n was not fraudulent and should not have been\\n revoked. Therefore, judicial review is not fore-\\n closed. In other words, [the] USCIS’s rationale\\n concerns only the regulatory procedures and\\n not the merits of its decision to revoke the peti-\\n tion. Musunuru does indeed contend that he\\n can prevail on the merits of his underlying\\n claim … , but we are not reviewing that con-\\n tention. On the contrary, we are reviewing\\n [the] USCIS’s decision to deny him the oppor-\\n tunity to challenge the revocation. Ergo, we\\n have jurisdiction to review Musunuru’s claims.\\nMusunuru, 831 F.3d at 887–88. Two other circuits reached\\nsimilar conclusions when confronting this specific procedur-\\nal issue. See Mantena v. Johnson, 809 F.3d 721, 729 (2d Cir.\\n\\f10 No. 17-3521\\n\\n2015); Kurapati v. U.S. Bureau of Citizenship & Immigration\\nServs., 775 F.3d 1255, 1262 (11th Cir. 2014).\\n In sum, we’ve recognized a narrow jurisdictional path for\\nchallenging purely procedural rulings. In Calma we asserted\\njurisdiction over discrete “procedural step[s].” 663 F.3d at\\n877 (citing as examples “the denial of a continuance … , the\\ndenial of a motion to reconsider, a refusal to remand, or a\\nrefusal to reopen a case”). So we can review the immigration\\nagency’s resolution of a specific procedural dispute during\\nan administrative adjudication. See Musunuru, 831 F.3d at\\n888. But even then we lack jurisdiction if the rationale under-\\nlying the agency’s procedural ruling would also resolve the\\nmerits of the petitioner’s application. Id. at 887 (quoting\\nCalma, 663 F.3d at 876).\\n Calma and Musunuru do not, however, open the door to\\nchallenging discretionary revocations on nominally “proce-\\ndural” grounds. Courts may review identifiable procedural\\nrulings that don’t implicate a petition’s merits. But a plaintiff\\ncannot sidestep § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) by artfully framing a\\nchallenge to the agency’s substantive decision as a proce-\\ndural claim. Imagine the USCIS asks a visa applicant to\\nverify a fact supporting his EB-5 petition. The applicant\\nresponds with a self-prepared affidavit. Unconvinced, the\\nagency revokes the petition anyway. The alien might frame\\nan APA complaint in “procedural” terms, alleging that the\\nUSCIS violated its own regulations by failing to consider his\\naffidavit. But at bottom that’s a substantive challenge to the\\nagency’s weighing of the evidence, which Congress has\\nimmunized from judicial scrutiny.\\n Doe alleges that the USCIS violated several regulations\\ngoverning the revocation process. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 205.2(b)–\\n\\fNo. 17-3521 11\\n\\n(c), 103.2(b)(16)(i). He also cites a pair of agency opinions\\nrestating the regulatory language. See In re Arias, 19 I. & N.\\nDec. 568 (BIA 1988); In re Estime, 19 I. & N. Dec. 450 (BIA\\n1987). The regulations address the basic notice-and-response\\nrequirements that the USCIS must follow when deciding\\nwhether to revoke a visa petition. Everyone agrees that the\\nagency formally complied with those regulations. It gave\\nDoe an opportunity to rebut the Notice of Intent to Revoke,\\nand it provided a written explanation of its reasoning in the\\nNotice of Revocation.\\n Doe concedes that the USCIS followed this procedural\\nframework. He maintains that his opportunity for response\\nwas an empty formality: by incorrectly stating the facts and\\nthe law, the agency denied him a “legitimate opportunity to\\nchallenge” the revocation. He also argues that the language\\nused in the Notice of Intent to Revoke and Notice of Revoca-\\ntion betrays underlying procedural violations. As he sees it,\\neven a facial review of the agency’s papers would reveal that\\nthe USCIS disregarded its own procedures.\\n But § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars us from combing the substance\\nof the agency’s decision in search of a lurking procedural\\nviolation. To overcome the jurisdictional bar, Doe has re-\\npackaged a set of substantive complaints about the merits of\\nthe agency’s action as a set of procedural violations. Unlike\\nin Musunuru where the USCIS denied the petitioner “the\\nopportunity to challenge the revocation,” the agency did not\\n“deny[] [Doe] … procedures,” such as notice, an opportunity\\nto respond, or an administrative appeal. See 831 F.3d at 887–\\n88 (emphasis added). Nor did it make an identifiable proce-\\ndural ruling that might arguably qualify for review under\\nMusunuru. The USCIS simply evaluated the “entire record of\\n\\f12 No. 17-3521\\n\\nproceeding” in Doe’s case and revoked his petition for what\\nit deemed “good and sufficient cause.”\\n For all his “procedural” framing, what Doe really wants is\\njudicial review of the revocation under the APA’s arbitrary-\\nand-capricious standard. See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). Indeed, his\\narguments mirror the factors we consider when applying\\nthat standard of review. See Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S.,\\nInc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)\\n(examining whether the agency “offered an explanation …\\nthat runs counter to the evidence … or is so implausible that\\nit could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product\\nof agency expertise”). We’ve already established that courts\\ncannot use that standard to evaluate discretionary revoca-\\ntions under § 1155. See Bultasa Buddhist Temple, 878 F.3d at\\n574 (citing El–Khader, 366 F.3d at 565).\\n Taken to its logical conclusion, Doe’s approach would\\neviscerate § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). Any petitioner dissatisfied with\\na final agency decision could secure judicial review by\\nalleging that the agency committed a procedural violation by\\noverlooking favorable evidence. Musunuru doesn’t stand for\\nthat proposition, and we won’t adopt it here. Doe’s com-\\nplaint challenges the agency’s substantive decision-making,\\nnot its application of a procedural rule during administrative\\nadjudication. Merely citing the Code of Federal Regulations\\ndoesn’t convert a substantive challenge into a procedural\\none. The district court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is\\n AFFIRMED.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2592,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4630296,"string":"4,630,296"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"Catherine WANKO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY, Defendant-Appellee."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Catherine Wanko v. Board of Trustees of Indiana U"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-06-17"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-2767"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Ripple, Manion, Sykes\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Daniel Anthony Manion\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18‐2767\\nCATHERINE WANKO,\\n Plaintiff‐Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nBOARD OF TRUSTEES OF INDIANA\\nUNIVERSITY,\\n Defendant‐Appellee.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.\\n No. 16‐cv‐02789 — Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED MARCH 28, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 17, 2019\\n ____________________\\n Before RIPPLE, MANION, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.\\n MANION, Circuit Judge. Catherine Wanko brought this\\nsuit under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d,\\nalleging Indiana University (IU) discriminated against her by\\nhaving her retake her entire first‐year curriculum at IU’s\\nSchool of Dentistry. In discovery, IU produced spreadsheets\\ncontaining the demographics and grades of the students in\\nWanko’s class. Those spreadsheets showed no student, let\\nalone one outside of a protected class, was similarly situated\\n\\f2 No. 18‐2767\\n\\nto Wanko. Wanko moved to compel the production of the ac‐\\ntual student records, but that motion was denied. As Wanko\\nwas unable to show a sufficient comparator for her discrimi‐\\nnation claim, the district court granted summary judgment to\\nIU. We affirm.\\n I.\\n Wanko is a naturalized United States citizen from Came‐\\nroon. She began her dental studies at IU in Fall 2014. During\\nthe 2014–2015 school year, Wanko failed to complete success‐\\nfully two courses: Removable Prosthodontics (RP) and Single\\nTooth Indirect Restorations (STI). Based on her grades in\\nthose classes, IU allowed Wanko the opportunity to remedi‐\\nate RP in Summer 2015 and retake STI in Spring 2016.\\n A total of eight students, including Wanko, attempted to\\nremediate RP. To pass the remediation course, a student had\\nto score at least 80% on the exam. Wanko scored 71%. On June\\n22, 2015, IU notified Wanko she would have to repeat the\\nwhole first‐year curriculum. She was the only student in her\\nclass to be held back. After Wanko failed to complete her sec‐\\nond attempt at STI in Spring 2016, IU dismissed her.\\n Not long thereafter, Wanko, through counsel, reached out\\nto IU. In response, IU’s general counsel emailed Wanko’s\\ncounsel stating one other student, identified as “Student #2,”\\nalso failed STI in Spring 2015. IU’s counsel explained IU al‐\\nlowed Student #2 to proceed into the second‐year curriculum\\n“because she failed only one class and had a cumulative GPA\\nabove 2.0.” The email showed Student #2 had a Spring 2015\\nGPA of 2.131. Wanko’s GPA was 1.965.\\n Wanko brought suit in October 2016. She claimed IU dis‐\\ncriminated against her on the basis of race when it failed to\\n\\fNo. 18‐2767 3\\n\\npromote her to the second‐year curriculum.1 In her complaint,\\nWanko alleged two or three similarly situated, non‐black stu‐\\ndents were promoted when she was not. That charge was\\nbased on a conversation Wanko had with the professor who\\ntaught STI in 2015. He told her two or three students failed his\\ncourse and would retake it the next year. He did not reveal\\nany demographics about those students.\\n In discovery, Wanko sought information about the de‐\\nmographics and grades of her former classmates. In response,\\nIU produced spreadsheets showing the GPA, grades, race,\\nand gender of each student in Wanko’s class. IU did not pro‐\\nvide the students’ names, but it assigned every student a\\nnumber as an identifier. IU says it chose this method of pro‐\\nduction out of concern for its responsibilities under the Fam‐\\nily Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA),\\nwhich set up safeguards concerning the release of student in‐\\nformation. See 20 U.S.C. § 1232g. IU’s spreadsheets showed\\nonly two students had failed both RP and STI in the 2014–2015\\nschool year: Wanko and another black female, the “Student\\n#2” from the general counsel’s email (IU identifies her as “Stu‐\\ndent #57 in the spreadsheets, but we will continue to refer to\\nher as “Student #2”). Unlike Wanko, however, Student #2 suc‐\\ncessfully remediated RP and was allowed to proceed to the\\nsecond‐year curriculum despite her failing grade in STI.\\n Wanko was not satisfied with IU’s spreadsheets. She\\nmoved to compel production of the actual student records,\\nclaiming she needed them to know which white students in\\n\\n\\n 1Wanko also claimed racial discrimination motivated her dismissal\\nfrom IU in 2016. The district court dismissed that claim on IU’s motion.\\nWanko does not appeal that ruling.\\n\\f4 No. 18‐2767\\n\\nher class failed STI. She argued the spreadsheets are unrelia‐\\nble because the GPA for Student #2 is different than the GPA\\nthe general counsel had reported earlier. The general counsel\\nhad provided a GPA of 2.131, whereas the spreadsheets re‐\\nported a GPA of 2.568. Responding to Wanko’s motion, IU\\nexplained the discrepancy was because the general counsel\\nprovided Student #2’s Spring 2015 GPA, but the spreadsheets\\nprovided Student #2’s cumulative GPA.\\n A magistrate judge orally denied Wanko’s motion during\\na telephonic discovery conference. Because IU had provided\\nWanko with the demographic and grade information in the\\nspreadsheets, the judge concluded Wanko had not shown she\\nneeded the actual student records. The judge also concluded\\nWanko had not shown the spreadsheets lacked veracity. After\\nthat oral denial, Wanko filed a written motion making the\\nsame arguments, which the magistrate judge also denied.\\n Wanko objected to the district court. While that objection\\nwas pending, IU moved for summary judgment. Wanko, ra‐\\nther than responding to the motion, moved to postpone rul‐\\ning on summary judgment because of the student‐records is‐\\nsue.\\n The district court resolved all three motions in one order.\\nFirst, it overruled Wanko’s objection to the magistrate judge’s\\ndecisions, holding the magistrate judge reasonably concluded\\nthe information in the spreadsheets was sufficient. Second, it\\ndenied Wanko’s motion to postpone ruling on summary\\njudgment, finding Wanko had not shown a good faith reason\\nwhy she could not respond to IU’s motion for summary judg‐\\nment. Third, the district court granted IU’s motion for sum‐\\nmary judgment, concluding Wanko could not succeed on her\\n\\fNo. 18‐2767 5\\n\\ndiscrimination claim because she could not identify a simi‐\\nlarly situated, non‐black student who received better treat‐\\nment.\\n II.\\n In this appeal, for good reason Wanko does not contest the\\nmerits of the district court’s ruling on summary judgment. A\\ncareful review of the record before us compels the entry of\\nsummary judgment for IU. Wanko has no evidence of a simi‐\\nlarly situated, non‐black student who received better treat‐\\nment than she received. See Brewer v. Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of\\nIll., 479 F.3d 908, 921 (7th Cir. 2007) (requiring a plaintiff to\\nshow she experienced “worse treatment than that of similarly\\nsituated students not in the protected class”). The closest pos‐\\nsible comparator is Student #2, a black female who failed to\\ncomplete RP and STI on her first tries. But she, unlike Wanko,\\nmanaged to remediate RP, so she is not similarly situated to\\nWanko. See Patterson v. Avery Dennison Corp., 281 F.3d 676, 680\\n(7th Cir. 2002) (explaining a comparator must be “directly\\ncomparable to [the plaintiff] in all material respects”).\\n Because the record weighs significantly against her,\\nWanko insists parts of it are not accurate. She argues the dis‐\\ntrict court erred when it (1) overruled her objection to the\\nmagistrate judge’s decision denying her motion to compel\\ndiscovery of the actual student records and (2) denied her mo‐\\ntion to postpone summary judgment.\\n “Managing the discovery process is the district court’s\\nbusiness … .” Brill v. Lante Corp., 119 F.3d 1266, 1275 (7th Cir.\\n1997). “The district court is in the best position to decide the\\nproper scope of discovery and to settle any discovery dis‐\\nputes.” Scott v. Chuhak & Tecson, P.C., 725 F.3d 772, 785 (7th\\n\\f6 No. 18‐2767\\n\\nCir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Gile v.\\nUnited Airlines, Inc., 95 F.3d 492, 495 (7th Cir. 1996)). Accord‐\\ningly, we deferentially review discovery decisions for abuse\\nof discretion. Vallone v. CNA Fin. Corp., 375 F.3d 623, 629 (7th\\nCir. 2004). This includes decisions whether to defer ruling on\\nsummary judgment motions. See Helping Hand Caregivers, Ltd.\\nv. Darden Restaurants, Inc., 900 F.3d 884, 890 (7th Cir. 2018).\\nThere is no such abuse here.\\n Concerning the denial of Wanko’s motion to compel,\\nWanko wants actual student records to help her find a com‐\\nparator for her Title VI claim. She says IU’s spreadsheets are\\nnot acceptable because they are unreliable, pointing to the\\nGPA discrepancy relating to Student #2. But the magistrate\\njudge considered that argument and rejected it, and the dis‐\\ntrict court accepted that rejection. Wanko has given us no rea‐\\nson to conclude those decisions were beyond the bounds of\\ndiscretion.\\n We reach the same conclusion concerning the denial of\\nWanko’s motion to postpone summary judgment. Federal\\nRule of Civil Procedure 56(d) allows the district court to “de‐\\nfer consider[ation]” of a motion for summary judgment “[i]f\\na nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for spec‐\\nified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its op‐\\nposition.” Essentially, the rule requires the party facing sum‐\\nmary judgment to “make a good faith showing that it cannot\\nrespond” to the motion for summary judgment. See United\\nStates v. All Assets & Equipment of West Side Bldg. Corp., 58 F.3d\\n1181, 1190 (7th Cir. 1995) (referring to the deferral provision’s\\nformer location at subsection (f)).\\n Wanko argues she could not respond to the motion for\\nsummary judgment without the actual student records.\\n\\fNo. 18‐2767 7\\n\\nWanko certainly has a need for information about her fellow\\nclassmates (races, grades, etc.), and without such information\\ncould not meaningfully respond to a motion for summary\\njudgment. The problem for Wanko is she already has this in‐\\nformation in the spreadsheets IU provided. Having rejected\\nWanko’s argument concerning the veracity of those spread‐\\nsheets, the district court reasonably concluded Wanko had no\\nneed for the actual student records. Thus, Wanko did not pro‐\\nvide “a good faith reason” for her failure to respond to IU’s\\nmotion. It was not an abuse of discretion for the court to deny\\nWanko’s Rule 56(d) motion and rule on IU’s motion for sum‐\\nmary judgment.2\\n III.\\n As the district court did not abuse its discretion in resolv‐\\ning these discovery disputes, we AFFIRM.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 2 In her brief, Wanko couches her arguments in terms of due process,\\ni.e., without the student records she was not given “the opportunity to be\\nheard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” See Mathews v.\\nEldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976) (internal quotation marks omitted)\\n(quoting Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965)). There was no due\\nprocess violation here. The magistrate judge and the district court al‐\\nlowed Wanko to argue her discovery issues. Just because they ruled\\nagainst her on discovery matters does not mean they deprived her of due\\nprocess.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4407549/\", \"author_raw\": \"Daniel Anthony Manion\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"RIPPLE"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"MANION"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"SYKES"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4630296/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":6,"string":"6"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Catherine WANKO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY, Defendant-Appellee.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-06-17\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18‐2767\nCATHERINE WANKO,\n Plaintiff‐Appellant,\n v.\n\nBOARD OF TRUSTEES OF INDIANA\nUNIVERSITY,\n Defendant‐Appellee.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.\n No. 16‐cv‐02789 — Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED MARCH 28, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 17, 2019\n ____________________\n Before RIPPLE, MANION, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.\n MANION, Circuit Judge. Catherine Wanko brought this\nsuit under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d,\nalleging Indiana University (IU) discriminated against her by\nhaving her retake her entire first‐year curriculum at IU’s\nSchool of Dentistry. In discovery, IU produced spreadsheets\ncontaining the demographics and grades of the students in\nWanko’s class. Those spreadsheets showed no student, let\nalone one outside of a protected class, was similarly situated\n\f2 No. 18‐2767\n\nto Wanko. Wanko moved to compel the production of the ac‐\ntual student records, but that motion was denied. As Wanko\nwas unable to show a sufficient comparator for her discrimi‐\nnation claim, the district court granted summary judgment to\nIU. We affirm.\n I.\n Wanko is a naturalized United States citizen from Came‐\nroon. She began her dental studies at IU in Fall 2014. During\nthe 2014–2015 school year, Wanko failed to complete success‐\nfully two courses: Removable Prosthodontics (RP) and Single\nTooth Indirect Restorations (STI). Based on her grades in\nthose classes, IU allowed Wanko the opportunity to remedi‐\nate RP in Summer 2015 and retake STI in Spring 2016.\n A total of eight students, including Wanko, attempted to\nremediate RP. To pass the remediation course, a student had\nto score at least 80% on the exam. Wanko scored 71%. On June\n22, 2015, IU notified Wanko she would have to repeat the\nwhole first‐year curriculum. She was the only student in her\nclass to be held back. After Wanko failed to complete her sec‐\nond attempt at STI in Spring 2016, IU dismissed her.\n Not long thereafter, Wanko, through counsel, reached out\nto IU. In response, IU’s general counsel emailed Wanko’s\ncounsel stating one other student, identified as “Student #2,”\nalso failed STI in Spring 2015. IU’s counsel explained IU al‐\nlowed Student #2 to proceed into the second‐year curriculum\n“because she failed only one class and had a cumulative GPA\nabove 2.0.” The email showed Student #2 had a Spring 2015\nGPA of 2.131. Wanko’s GPA was 1.965.\n Wanko brought suit in October 2016. She claimed IU dis‐\ncriminated against her on the basis of race when it failed to\n\fNo. 18‐2767 3\n\npromote her to the second‐year curriculum.1 In her complaint,\nWanko alleged two or three similarly situated, non‐black stu‐\ndents were promoted when she was not. That charge was\nbased on a conversation Wanko had with the professor who\ntaught STI in 2015. He told her two or three students failed his\ncourse and would retake it the next year. He did not reveal\nany demographics about those students.\n In discovery, Wanko sought information about the de‐\nmographics and grades of her former classmates. In response,\nIU produced spreadsheets showing the GPA, grades, race,\nand gender of each student in Wanko’s class. IU did not pro‐\nvide the students’ names, but it assigned every student a\nnumber as an identifier. IU says it chose this method of pro‐\nduction out of concern for its responsibilities under the Fam‐\nily Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA),\nwhich set up safeguards concerning the release of student in‐\nformation. See 20 U.S.C. § 1232g. IU’s spreadsheets showed\nonly two students had failed both RP and STI in the 2014–2015\nschool year: Wanko and another black female, the “Student\n#2” from the general counsel’s email (IU identifies her as “Stu‐\ndent #57 in the spreadsheets, but we will continue to refer to\nher as “Student #2”). Unlike Wanko, however, Student #2 suc‐\ncessfully remediated RP and was allowed to proceed to the\nsecond‐year curriculum despite her failing grade in STI.\n Wanko was not satisfied with IU’s spreadsheets. She\nmoved to compel production of the actual student records,\nclaiming she needed them to know which white students in\n\n\n 1Wanko also claimed racial discrimination motivated her dismissal\nfrom IU in 2016. The district court dismissed that claim on IU’s motion.\nWanko does not appeal that ruling.\n\f4 No. 18‐2767\n\nher class failed STI. She argued the spreadsheets are unrelia‐\nble because the GPA for Student #2 is different than the GPA\nthe general counsel had reported earlier. The general counsel\nhad provided a GPA of 2.131, whereas the spreadsheets re‐\nported a GPA of 2.568. Responding to Wanko’s motion, IU\nexplained the discrepancy was because the general counsel\nprovided Student #2’s Spring 2015 GPA, but the spreadsheets\nprovided Student #2’s cumulative GPA.\n A magistrate judge orally denied Wanko’s motion during\na telephonic discovery conference. Because IU had provided\nWanko with the demographic and grade information in the\nspreadsheets, the judge concluded Wanko had not shown she\nneeded the actual student records. The judge also concluded\nWanko had not shown the spreadsheets lacked veracity. After\nthat oral denial, Wanko filed a written motion making the\nsame arguments, which the magistrate judge also denied.\n Wanko objected to the district court. While that objection\nwas pending, IU moved for summary judgment. Wanko, ra‐\nther than responding to the motion, moved to postpone rul‐\ning on summary judgment because of the student‐records is‐\nsue.\n The district court resolved all three motions in one order.\nFirst, it overruled Wanko’s objection to the magistrate judge’s\ndecisions, holding the magistrate judge reasonably concluded\nthe information in the spreadsheets was sufficient. Second, it\ndenied Wanko’s motion to postpone ruling on summary\njudgment, finding Wanko had not shown a good faith reason\nwhy she could not respond to IU’s motion for summary judg‐\nment. Third, the district court granted IU’s motion for sum‐\nmary judgment, concluding Wanko could not succeed on her\n\fNo. 18‐2767 5\n\ndiscrimination claim because she could not identify a simi‐\nlarly situated, non‐black student who received better treat‐\nment.\n II.\n In this appeal, for good reason Wanko does not contest the\nmerits of the district court’s ruling on summary judgment. A\ncareful review of the record before us compels the entry of\nsummary judgment for IU. Wanko has no evidence of a simi‐\nlarly situated, non‐black student who received better treat‐\nment than she received. See Brewer v. Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of\nIll., 479 F.3d 908, 921 (7th Cir. 2007) (requiring a plaintiff to\nshow she experienced “worse treatment than that of similarly\nsituated students not in the protected class”). The closest pos‐\nsible comparator is Student #2, a black female who failed to\ncomplete RP and STI on her first tries. But she, unlike Wanko,\nmanaged to remediate RP, so she is not similarly situated to\nWanko. See Patterson v. Avery Dennison Corp., 281 F.3d 676, 680\n(7th Cir. 2002) (explaining a comparator must be “directly\ncomparable to [the plaintiff] in all material respects”).\n Because the record weighs significantly against her,\nWanko insists parts of it are not accurate. She argues the dis‐\ntrict court erred when it (1) overruled her objection to the\nmagistrate judge’s decision denying her motion to compel\ndiscovery of the actual student records and (2) denied her mo‐\ntion to postpone summary judgment.\n “Managing the discovery process is the district court’s\nbusiness … .” Brill v. Lante Corp., 119 F.3d 1266, 1275 (7th Cir.\n1997). “The district court is in the best position to decide the\nproper scope of discovery and to settle any discovery dis‐\nputes.” Scott v. Chuhak & Tecson, P.C., 725 F.3d 772, 785 (7th\n\f6 No. 18‐2767\n\nCir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Gile v.\nUnited Airlines, Inc., 95 F.3d 492, 495 (7th Cir. 1996)). Accord‐\ningly, we deferentially review discovery decisions for abuse\nof discretion. Vallone v. CNA Fin. Corp., 375 F.3d 623, 629 (7th\nCir. 2004). This includes decisions whether to defer ruling on\nsummary judgment motions. See Helping Hand Caregivers, Ltd.\nv. Darden Restaurants, Inc., 900 F.3d 884, 890 (7th Cir. 2018).\nThere is no such abuse here.\n Concerning the denial of Wanko’s motion to compel,\nWanko wants actual student records to help her find a com‐\nparator for her Title VI claim. She says IU’s spreadsheets are\nnot acceptable because they are unreliable, pointing to the\nGPA discrepancy relating to Student #2. But the magistrate\njudge considered that argument and rejected it, and the dis‐\ntrict court accepted that rejection. Wanko has given us no rea‐\nson to conclude those decisions were beyond the bounds of\ndiscretion.\n We reach the same conclusion concerning the denial of\nWanko’s motion to postpone summary judgment. Federal\nRule of Civil Procedure 56(d) allows the district court to “de‐\nfer consider[ation]” of a motion for summary judgment “[i]f\na nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for spec‐\nified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its op‐\nposition.” Essentially, the rule requires the party facing sum‐\nmary judgment to “make a good faith showing that it cannot\nrespond” to the motion for summary judgment. See United\nStates v. All Assets & Equipment of West Side Bldg. Corp., 58 F.3d\n1181, 1190 (7th Cir. 1995) (referring to the deferral provision’s\nformer location at subsection (f)).\n Wanko argues she could not respond to the motion for\nsummary judgment without the actual student records.\n\fNo. 18‐2767 7\n\nWanko certainly has a need for information about her fellow\nclassmates (races, grades, etc.), and without such information\ncould not meaningfully respond to a motion for summary\njudgment. The problem for Wanko is she already has this in‐\nformation in the spreadsheets IU provided. Having rejected\nWanko’s argument concerning the veracity of those spread‐\nsheets, the district court reasonably concluded Wanko had no\nneed for the actual student records. Thus, Wanko did not pro‐\nvide “a good faith reason” for her failure to respond to IU’s\nmotion. It was not an abuse of discretion for the court to deny\nWanko’s Rule 56(d) motion and rule on IU’s motion for sum‐\nmary judgment.2\n III.\n As the district court did not abuse its discretion in resolv‐\ning these discovery disputes, we AFFIRM.\n\n\n\n\n 2 In her brief, Wanko couches her arguments in terms of due process,\ni.e., without the student records she was not given “the opportunity to be\nheard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” See Mathews v.\nEldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976) (internal quotation marks omitted)\n(quoting Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965)). There was no due\nprocess violation here. The magistrate judge and the district court al‐\nlowed Wanko to argue her discovery issues. Just because they ruled\nagainst her on discovery matters does not mean they deprived her of due\nprocess.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Catherine WANKO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY, Defendant-Appellee.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-06-17\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18‐2767\\nCATHERINE WANKO,\\n Plaintiff‐Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nBOARD OF TRUSTEES OF INDIANA\\nUNIVERSITY,\\n Defendant‐Appellee.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.\\n No. 16‐cv‐02789 — Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED MARCH 28, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 17, 2019\\n ____________________\\n Before RIPPLE, MANION, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.\\n MANION, Circuit Judge. Catherine Wanko brought this\\nsuit under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d,\\nalleging Indiana University (IU) discriminated against her by\\nhaving her retake her entire first‐year curriculum at IU’s\\nSchool of Dentistry. In discovery, IU produced spreadsheets\\ncontaining the demographics and grades of the students in\\nWanko’s class. Those spreadsheets showed no student, let\\nalone one outside of a protected class, was similarly situated\\n\\f2 No. 18‐2767\\n\\nto Wanko. Wanko moved to compel the production of the ac‐\\ntual student records, but that motion was denied. As Wanko\\nwas unable to show a sufficient comparator for her discrimi‐\\nnation claim, the district court granted summary judgment to\\nIU. We affirm.\\n I.\\n Wanko is a naturalized United States citizen from Came‐\\nroon. She began her dental studies at IU in Fall 2014. During\\nthe 2014–2015 school year, Wanko failed to complete success‐\\nfully two courses: Removable Prosthodontics (RP) and Single\\nTooth Indirect Restorations (STI). Based on her grades in\\nthose classes, IU allowed Wanko the opportunity to remedi‐\\nate RP in Summer 2015 and retake STI in Spring 2016.\\n A total of eight students, including Wanko, attempted to\\nremediate RP. To pass the remediation course, a student had\\nto score at least 80% on the exam. Wanko scored 71%. On June\\n22, 2015, IU notified Wanko she would have to repeat the\\nwhole first‐year curriculum. She was the only student in her\\nclass to be held back. After Wanko failed to complete her sec‐\\nond attempt at STI in Spring 2016, IU dismissed her.\\n Not long thereafter, Wanko, through counsel, reached out\\nto IU. In response, IU’s general counsel emailed Wanko’s\\ncounsel stating one other student, identified as “Student #2,”\\nalso failed STI in Spring 2015. IU’s counsel explained IU al‐\\nlowed Student #2 to proceed into the second‐year curriculum\\n“because she failed only one class and had a cumulative GPA\\nabove 2.0.” The email showed Student #2 had a Spring 2015\\nGPA of 2.131. Wanko’s GPA was 1.965.\\n Wanko brought suit in October 2016. She claimed IU dis‐\\ncriminated against her on the basis of race when it failed to\\n\\fNo. 18‐2767 3\\n\\npromote her to the second‐year curriculum.1 In her complaint,\\nWanko alleged two or three similarly situated, non‐black stu‐\\ndents were promoted when she was not. That charge was\\nbased on a conversation Wanko had with the professor who\\ntaught STI in 2015. He told her two or three students failed his\\ncourse and would retake it the next year. He did not reveal\\nany demographics about those students.\\n In discovery, Wanko sought information about the de‐\\nmographics and grades of her former classmates. In response,\\nIU produced spreadsheets showing the GPA, grades, race,\\nand gender of each student in Wanko’s class. IU did not pro‐\\nvide the students’ names, but it assigned every student a\\nnumber as an identifier. IU says it chose this method of pro‐\\nduction out of concern for its responsibilities under the Fam‐\\nily Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA),\\nwhich set up safeguards concerning the release of student in‐\\nformation. See 20 U.S.C. § 1232g. IU’s spreadsheets showed\\nonly two students had failed both RP and STI in the 2014–2015\\nschool year: Wanko and another black female, the “Student\\n#2” from the general counsel’s email (IU identifies her as “Stu‐\\ndent #57 in the spreadsheets, but we will continue to refer to\\nher as “Student #2”). Unlike Wanko, however, Student #2 suc‐\\ncessfully remediated RP and was allowed to proceed to the\\nsecond‐year curriculum despite her failing grade in STI.\\n Wanko was not satisfied with IU’s spreadsheets. She\\nmoved to compel production of the actual student records,\\nclaiming she needed them to know which white students in\\n\\n\\n 1Wanko also claimed racial discrimination motivated her dismissal\\nfrom IU in 2016. The district court dismissed that claim on IU’s motion.\\nWanko does not appeal that ruling.\\n\\f4 No. 18‐2767\\n\\nher class failed STI. She argued the spreadsheets are unrelia‐\\nble because the GPA for Student #2 is different than the GPA\\nthe general counsel had reported earlier. The general counsel\\nhad provided a GPA of 2.131, whereas the spreadsheets re‐\\nported a GPA of 2.568. Responding to Wanko’s motion, IU\\nexplained the discrepancy was because the general counsel\\nprovided Student #2’s Spring 2015 GPA, but the spreadsheets\\nprovided Student #2’s cumulative GPA.\\n A magistrate judge orally denied Wanko’s motion during\\na telephonic discovery conference. Because IU had provided\\nWanko with the demographic and grade information in the\\nspreadsheets, the judge concluded Wanko had not shown she\\nneeded the actual student records. The judge also concluded\\nWanko had not shown the spreadsheets lacked veracity. After\\nthat oral denial, Wanko filed a written motion making the\\nsame arguments, which the magistrate judge also denied.\\n Wanko objected to the district court. While that objection\\nwas pending, IU moved for summary judgment. Wanko, ra‐\\nther than responding to the motion, moved to postpone rul‐\\ning on summary judgment because of the student‐records is‐\\nsue.\\n The district court resolved all three motions in one order.\\nFirst, it overruled Wanko’s objection to the magistrate judge’s\\ndecisions, holding the magistrate judge reasonably concluded\\nthe information in the spreadsheets was sufficient. Second, it\\ndenied Wanko’s motion to postpone ruling on summary\\njudgment, finding Wanko had not shown a good faith reason\\nwhy she could not respond to IU’s motion for summary judg‐\\nment. Third, the district court granted IU’s motion for sum‐\\nmary judgment, concluding Wanko could not succeed on her\\n\\fNo. 18‐2767 5\\n\\ndiscrimination claim because she could not identify a simi‐\\nlarly situated, non‐black student who received better treat‐\\nment.\\n II.\\n In this appeal, for good reason Wanko does not contest the\\nmerits of the district court’s ruling on summary judgment. A\\ncareful review of the record before us compels the entry of\\nsummary judgment for IU. Wanko has no evidence of a simi‐\\nlarly situated, non‐black student who received better treat‐\\nment than she received. See Brewer v. Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of\\nIll., 479 F.3d 908, 921 (7th Cir. 2007) (requiring a plaintiff to\\nshow she experienced “worse treatment than that of similarly\\nsituated students not in the protected class”). The closest pos‐\\nsible comparator is Student #2, a black female who failed to\\ncomplete RP and STI on her first tries. But she, unlike Wanko,\\nmanaged to remediate RP, so she is not similarly situated to\\nWanko. See Patterson v. Avery Dennison Corp., 281 F.3d 676, 680\\n(7th Cir. 2002) (explaining a comparator must be “directly\\ncomparable to [the plaintiff] in all material respects”).\\n Because the record weighs significantly against her,\\nWanko insists parts of it are not accurate. She argues the dis‐\\ntrict court erred when it (1) overruled her objection to the\\nmagistrate judge’s decision denying her motion to compel\\ndiscovery of the actual student records and (2) denied her mo‐\\ntion to postpone summary judgment.\\n “Managing the discovery process is the district court’s\\nbusiness … .” Brill v. Lante Corp., 119 F.3d 1266, 1275 (7th Cir.\\n1997). “The district court is in the best position to decide the\\nproper scope of discovery and to settle any discovery dis‐\\nputes.” Scott v. Chuhak & Tecson, P.C., 725 F.3d 772, 785 (7th\\n\\f6 No. 18‐2767\\n\\nCir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Gile v.\\nUnited Airlines, Inc., 95 F.3d 492, 495 (7th Cir. 1996)). Accord‐\\ningly, we deferentially review discovery decisions for abuse\\nof discretion. Vallone v. CNA Fin. Corp., 375 F.3d 623, 629 (7th\\nCir. 2004). This includes decisions whether to defer ruling on\\nsummary judgment motions. See Helping Hand Caregivers, Ltd.\\nv. Darden Restaurants, Inc., 900 F.3d 884, 890 (7th Cir. 2018).\\nThere is no such abuse here.\\n Concerning the denial of Wanko’s motion to compel,\\nWanko wants actual student records to help her find a com‐\\nparator for her Title VI claim. She says IU’s spreadsheets are\\nnot acceptable because they are unreliable, pointing to the\\nGPA discrepancy relating to Student #2. But the magistrate\\njudge considered that argument and rejected it, and the dis‐\\ntrict court accepted that rejection. Wanko has given us no rea‐\\nson to conclude those decisions were beyond the bounds of\\ndiscretion.\\n We reach the same conclusion concerning the denial of\\nWanko’s motion to postpone summary judgment. Federal\\nRule of Civil Procedure 56(d) allows the district court to “de‐\\nfer consider[ation]” of a motion for summary judgment “[i]f\\na nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for spec‐\\nified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its op‐\\nposition.” Essentially, the rule requires the party facing sum‐\\nmary judgment to “make a good faith showing that it cannot\\nrespond” to the motion for summary judgment. See United\\nStates v. All Assets & Equipment of West Side Bldg. Corp., 58 F.3d\\n1181, 1190 (7th Cir. 1995) (referring to the deferral provision’s\\nformer location at subsection (f)).\\n Wanko argues she could not respond to the motion for\\nsummary judgment without the actual student records.\\n\\fNo. 18‐2767 7\\n\\nWanko certainly has a need for information about her fellow\\nclassmates (races, grades, etc.), and without such information\\ncould not meaningfully respond to a motion for summary\\njudgment. The problem for Wanko is she already has this in‐\\nformation in the spreadsheets IU provided. Having rejected\\nWanko’s argument concerning the veracity of those spread‐\\nsheets, the district court reasonably concluded Wanko had no\\nneed for the actual student records. Thus, Wanko did not pro‐\\nvide “a good faith reason” for her failure to respond to IU’s\\nmotion. It was not an abuse of discretion for the court to deny\\nWanko’s Rule 56(d) motion and rule on IU’s motion for sum‐\\nmary judgment.2\\n III.\\n As the district court did not abuse its discretion in resolv‐\\ning these discovery disputes, we AFFIRM.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 2 In her brief, Wanko couches her arguments in terms of due process,\\ni.e., without the student records she was not given “the opportunity to be\\nheard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” See Mathews v.\\nEldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976) (internal quotation marks omitted)\\n(quoting Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965)). There was no due\\nprocess violation here. The magistrate judge and the district court al‐\\nlowed Wanko to argue her discovery issues. Just because they ruled\\nagainst her on discovery matters does not mean they deprived her of due\\nprocess.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2593,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4630330,"string":"4,630,330"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Tyrone Gabb v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc."},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-06-17"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-2351"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before RIPPLE, MANION, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Daniel Anthony Manion\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-2351\\nTYRONE GABB,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nWEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES,\\nINC., et al.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Southern District of Illinois\\n No. 15-cv-01415 — J. Phil Gilbert, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED MARCH 28, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 17, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before RIPPLE, MANION, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.\\n MANION, Circuit Judge. While serving a prison sentence at\\nthe Lawrence Correctional Center in Illinois, Tyrone Gabb ex-\\nperienced severe back pain whenever he stood too long (15 to\\n20 minutes). After treatments he received did not relieve his\\npain, Gabb sued two members of the medical staff at Law-\\nrence, Dr. John Coe and Nurse Tammy Kimmel, alleging they\\nwere deliberately indifferent to his back pain in violation of\\n\\f2 No. 18-2351\\n\\nhis constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual pun-\\nishments. Gabb also sued Wexford Health Sources, Inc., the\\nprivate company that provided medical services at Lawrence.\\nThe district court granted summary judgment to all defend-\\nants, and Gabb appeals. Because Gabb has not presented any\\nevidence showing the defendants caused him any harm, we\\naffirm.\\n I.\\n This case comes to us on appeal from the grant of sum-\\nmary judgment, so we present the facts “in the light most fa-\\nvorable to [Gabb] and draw all inferences in [Gabb’s] favor.”\\nEstate of Simpson v. Gorbett, 863 F.3d 740, 745 (7th Cir. 2017).\\n Dr. Coe was the medical director at Lawrence. He first saw\\nGabb for back pain in January 2014. Coe performed an x-ray,\\nbut he did not prescribe medication. When he saw Gabb a\\nmonth later, Coe confirmed Gabb had pain in his lower back,\\nbut he again did not prescribe medication.\\n In September 2014, Gabb underwent another x-ray. This\\ntime, Coe diagnosed Gabb with chronic back pain and pre-\\nscribed the painkiller Motrin and the muscle-relaxer Robaxin.\\nWhen Gabb saw Coe again a month later, he told Coe the\\nmedications did little. Coe ordered Gabb a back support and\\nchanged Gabb’s painkiller prescription from Motrin to\\nNaproxen. Later that month, Gabb complained to a nurse the\\nback support and the painkillers were not providing relief. In\\nFebruary 2015, a physician’s assistant discontinued Gabb’s\\nNaproxen and prescribed Tylenol instead.\\n In March 2015, Gabb reported to the infirmary with ab-\\ndominal pain and encountered Nurse Kimmel. Gabb told\\n\\fNo. 18-2351 3\\n\\nKimmel he had osteoarthritis in his lower back and he be-\\nlieved the Tylenol was causing his stomach pain. He re-\\nquested a referral to a doctor so he could get a different med-\\nication. Because Gabb’s reason for seeking treatment was ab-\\ndominal pain, the only medication Kimmel could have ad-\\nministered pursuant to protocol was an antacid. Kimmel did\\nnot refer Gabb to a doctor or give him an antacid, but instead\\ntold him “to (1) lower his dose of Tylenol; (2) drink plenty of\\nfluids and eat properly; (3) plan on attending his follow-up\\nappointment with the physician’s assistant in June; and (4)\\ncome back to the infirmary if his symptoms worsened.”\\n In early April 2015, Gabb reported to the infirmary again\\ncomplaining of abdominal pain he believed was caused by the\\nTylenol. Gabb testified in his deposition that as he came to the\\nroom, Kimmel “immediately notified [him] that she was not\\ngoing to refer [him] to any physician because [he] was not in\\npain.” Gabb says he tried to tell Kimmel about his back pain,\\nbut “she verbally abused” and swore at him. She did not refer\\nGabb to a physician or consult with one concerning an appro-\\npriate course of treatment.\\n At the end of April, Gabb reported to the infirmary for ab-\\ndominal pain a third time. On this occasion, because he had\\nreported more than twice with the same complaint, he re-\\nceived a referral to Dr. Coe. When he saw Coe a week later,\\nCoe re-prescribed Naproxen, prescribed Vitamin D (which\\nCoe believed could help with muscle spasms and tightness),\\nand tightened Gabb’s back support. Coe told Gabb better\\ntreatment was available, but Wexford would not pay for it.\\n Coe saw Gabb again in the summer of 2015. Gabb com-\\nplained the Naproxen was not working. Coe tightened Gabb’s\\n\\f4 No. 18-2351\\n\\nback brace, demonstrated therapy exercises that could reduce\\nthe pain, and suggested Gabb exercise.\\n In August 2015, a physician’s assistant saw Gabb. The\\nphysician’s assistant reported Gabb’s pain was increasing and\\nhe suffered from a decreased range of motion. Gabb also had\\na slower gait and reported tingling in his toes. The physician’s\\nassistant prescribed Mobic, an anti-inflammatory drug.\\n In September 2015, Coe saw Gabb again. Gabb reported\\nthe pain was creeping into his middle back from his lower\\nback. Coe discontinued the Mobic and re-prescribed Robaxin.\\nIn October 2015, Coe diagnosed Gabb with mild degenerative\\ndisk disease and again prescribed Robaxin. He again told\\nGabb better treatments were available, but he would not refer\\nGabb because those treatments were too expensive. He also\\ntold Gabb that Wexford did not run a pain clinic. Later that\\nmonth, Coe again prescribed Naproxen. In November 2015,\\nCoe declined a low-bunk request for Gabb. That was the last\\nof Coe’s interactions with Gabb. At the time of his deposition\\nin 2017, Gabb testified he was under the care of a different\\nphysician and was still prescribed Naproxen, though he was\\nnot taking it because it was ineffective.\\n Gabb sued Coe, Kimmel, and their employer, Wexford, in\\nDecember 2015, claiming they violated his right to be free\\nfrom cruel and unusual punishments. The district court re-\\nferred the case to a magistrate judge. Coe and Kimmel moved\\nfor summary judgment. The magistrate judge recommended\\ndenying the motion. The judge found evidence showing Gabb\\nsuffered from a serious medical condition. The judge con-\\ncluded a reasonable jury could find Coe was deliberately in-\\ndifferent to that condition because he continued to prescribe\\nthe same medication knowing it was ineffective and made\\n\\fNo. 18-2351 5\\n\\ntreatment decisions based on costs, not medical judgment.\\nThe judge also concluded a reasonable jury could find Kim-\\nmel deliberately indifferent because she was aware of Gabb’s\\nback pain, yet refused to provide any medication or refer\\nGabb to a doctor.\\n Coe and Kimmel objected to the magistrate judge’s con-\\nclusions on deliberate indifference. The district court sus-\\ntained the objections, rejected the magistrate judge’s recom-\\nmendation, and granted the motion for summary judgment.\\nIn doing so, the district court catalogued the medical care Coe\\nprovided Gabb, concluding it represented a “thorough exer-\\ncise of medical discretion via numerous treatment strategies,”\\nnot “dogged persistence.” The district court wrote off Coe’s\\ncomments about the availability of “better treatment” because\\n“[a]ll of the evidence indicates that Dr. Coe’s medical treat-\\nment of Gabb involved the exercise of medical discretion and\\nwas not blatantly inappropriate.” The district court also con-\\ncluded Kimmel had provided constitutionally sufficient care;\\nGabb was just disagreeing with his treatment plan by request-\\ning a different pain medication. Having concluded there was\\nno underlying constitutional violation, the district court\\ngranted summary judgment sua sponte to Wexford.\\n II.\\n Gabb appeals the entry of summary judgment for the de-\\nfendants. We review de novo. Estate of Simpson, 863 F.3d at 745.\\nWe will affirm “if the movant shows that there is no genuine\\ndispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to\\njudgment as a matter of law.” See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). “By its\\nvery terms, this standard provides that the mere existence of\\nsome alleged factual dispute between the parties will not de-\\nfeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary\\n\\f6 No. 18-2351\\n\\njudgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of\\nmaterial fact.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247–\\n48 (1986). Thus, “summary judgment must be entered ‘against\\na party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the\\nexistence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on\\nwhich that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.’” Cooper\\nv. Lane, 969 F.2d 368, 371 (7th Cir. 1992) (quoting Celotex Corp.\\nv. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986)). “We may affirm the grant\\nof summary judgment on any ground supported by the rec-\\nord, as long as the parties adequately presented the issue be-\\nfore the district court and the nonmoving party had an oppor-\\ntunity to contest it.” de Lima Silva v. Dept. of Corrections, 917\\nF.3d 546, 558 (7th Cir. 2019).\\nA. Coe and Kimmel\\n Gabb brings this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which creates\\na tort remedy for those injured by the deprivation of a consti-\\ntutional right. See Roe v. Elyea, 631 F.3d 843, 863–64 (7th Cir.\\n2011). In order to succeed in a § 1983 suit, a plaintiff must “es-\\ntablish not only that a state actor violated his constitutional\\nrights, but also that the violation caused the plaintiff injury or\\ndamages.” Id. at 864.\\n Gabb claims his medical treatment at Lawrence violated\\nhis right to be free from cruel and unusual punishments. The\\nEighth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads:\\n“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines im-\\nposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” The Su-\\npreme Court tells us the proscription of cruel and unusual\\npunishments creates an “obligation to provide medical care”\\nto prisoners. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102–03 (1976); John-\\nson v. Doughty, 433 F.3d 1001, 1010 (7th Cir. 2006). This does\\nnot mean prisoners are “entitled to receive unqualified access\\n\\fNo. 18-2351 7\\n\\nto healthcare.” Burton v. Downey, 805 F.3d 776, 785 (7th Cir.\\n2015) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Hudson v.\\nMcMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992)). Nor does it turn medical mal-\\npractice into a constitutional violation. See Snipes v. DeTella, 95\\nF.3d 586, 590–91 (7th Cir. 1996) (“Such matters are questions\\nof tort, not constitutional law.”). Instead, the Eighth Amend-\\nment, as the Supreme Court has interpreted it, “protects pris-\\noners from prison conditions that cause ‘the wanton and un-\\nnecessary infliction of pain,’ including … grossly inadequate\\nmedical care.” Pyles v. Fahim, 771 F.3d 403, 408 (7th Cir. 2014)\\n(citations omitted) (quoting Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337,\\n347 (1981)).\\n We use a two-part test to determine if medical care\\namounted to cruel and unusual punishment. Petties v. Carter,\\n836 F.3d 722, 727–28 (7th Cir. 2016) (en banc). We ask\\n“whether a plaintiff suffered from an objectively serious med-\\nical condition” and “whether the individual defendant was\\ndeliberately indifferent to that condition.” Id. at 728.\\n In this case, the magistrate judge found evidence to con-\\nclude Gabb’s back pain qualified as an objectively serious\\nmedical condition. Coe and Kimmel did not object to that\\nfinding to the district court, and do not argue the point here.\\nSee generally Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th\\nCir. 1999) (“If a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s re-\\nport and recommendation in the district court, in this Circuit\\nhe waives appellate review of both factual and legal ques-\\ntions.”). So, we turn to deliberate indifference.\\n In Petties, this court, sitting en banc, expounded on the de-\\nliberate indifference standard at length. 836 F.3d at 728–31.\\n“[D]eliberate indifference” requires a “subjective state of\\nmind” somewhere between negligence and intention. Id. at\\n\\f8 No. 18-2351\\n\\n728. To show deliberate indifference, “a plaintiff must pro-\\nvide evidence that an official actually knew of and disre-\\ngarded a substantial risk of harm.” Id.\\n Gabb charges Coe and Kimmel with deliberate indiffer-\\nence. He maintains Coe was deliberately indifferent by per-\\nsisting in a course of ineffective treatment despite available\\nalternatives because of cost, and he maintains Kimmel was\\ndeliberately indifferent by failing to refer him to a physician\\nor prescribe him pain medication. However, we need not de-\\ncide whether Coe and Kimmel’s conduct rose to the level of\\ndeliberate indifference because, even if it did, Gabb has not\\nshown an injury as a result of their actions.\\n 1. Coe\\n Gabb has not presented any evidence by which a jury\\ncould reasonably find Gabb experienced harm at Coe’s hands.\\nGabb’s entire argument is he suffered because of Coe’s refusal\\nto adopt a “better” course of treatment because it was too ex-\\npensive. But Gabb does not tell us what that specific treatment\\nwas or how it would have alleviated his back pain. Gabb tes-\\ntified Coe mentioned surgery and medications (though he\\ncannot remember which ones) and now tells us the “better”\\ntreatment could also have been cortisone shots or a referral to\\na specialist, but he provides no details. And even if he was\\nmore specific about the “better” treatments, Gabb has no evi-\\ndence that any course of treatment, be it as simple as referral\\nto a chiropractor or as involved as surgery at the finest hospi-\\ntal in Illinois, would have provided him any relief from his\\nchronic back pain. See Petties, 836 F.3d at 733 (concluding the\\nplaintiff could not pursue his claim against the prison doctor\\nfor failing “to explore surgery as an option” in part because\\n\\fNo. 18-2351 9\\n\\nthe plaintiff “did not produce medical evidence confirming\\nthat he would have benefited from surgery”).\\n It is not enough that Coe referred to these other, unknown\\ntreatments as “better.” “Better” is not synonymous with\\n“good” or “effective.” Most people would consider falling\\nfrom five feet as better than falling from twenty, but neither\\nwould likely be good for one’s health. Gabb’s evidence sug-\\ngesting his condition declined during the relevant time pe-\\nriod—he suffered a reduced range of motion, experienced tin-\\ngling in his toes, and the pain spread to his middle back—is\\nalso insufficient to show harm as a result of Coe’s treatment.\\nHe has no evidence by which a reasonable jury could con-\\nclude Coe’s alleged failure to refer him to “better” treatment\\ncaused that decline. See Langston v. Peters, 100 F.3d 1235, 1240\\n(7th Cir. 1996) (“[A]n inmate who complains that delay in\\nmedical treatment rose to a constitutional violation must\\nplace verifying medical evidence in the record to establish the\\ndetrimental effect of delay in medical treatment to succeed.”\\n(quoting Beyerbach v. Sears, 49 F.3d 1324, 1326 (8th Cir. 1995))).\\n At oral argument, Gabb compared his situation to that of\\nthe plaintiff in Berry v. Peterman, 604 F.3d 435, 438–39 (7th Cir.\\n2010), whose persistent complaints of tooth pain were even-\\ntually remedied by a root canal. But unlike the plaintiff in\\nBerry, Gabb cannot show he suffered from “serious but avoid-\\nable pain.” Id. at 438 (emphasis added). There is no evidence\\nCoe’s decision to continue conservative forms of treatment in\\nany way negatively affected Gabb’s health.\\n The lack of evidence of what the “better” treatments were\\nand whether they would have been effective would leave a\\njury entirely to its own imagination about what could have\\n\\f10 No. 18-2351\\n\\nbeen done. Such unmitigated speculation cannot defeat sum-\\nmary judgment. See Austin v. Walgreen Co., 885 F.3d 1085, 1089\\n(7th Cir. 2018).\\n 2. Kimmel\\n The same evidentiary deficiency dooms Gabb’s claim\\nagainst Kimmel. Gabb faults Kimmel for not referring him to\\na doctor or giving him a different pain medication when Kim-\\nmel saw him in 2015. But even if those omissions amounted\\nto deliberate indifference, there is no evidence they harmed\\nGabb. Gabb has presented nothing suggesting that if he had\\nseen a doctor or received different medication soon after see-\\ning Kimmel it would have reduced his back pain. See Lang-\\nston, 100 F.3d at 1240. With no evidence that Kimmel’s con-\\nduct harmed him, he is not entitled to recovery under § 1983.\\nB. Wexford\\n We must also address the district court’s sua sponte grant\\nof summary judgment to Wexford. The court’s authority to\\nenter judgment sua sponte comes from Federal Rule of Civil\\nProcedure 56(f), which provides: “After giving notice and a rea-\\nsonable time to respond, the court may: (1) grant summary judg-\\nment for a nonmovant … ” (emphasis added).\\n We emphasize the prefatory phrase because the district\\ncourt did not give notice of its intent to grant summary judg-\\nment for Wexford before it did so. That was error. Cf. Williams\\nv. City of Chicago, 733 F.3d 749, 755 (7th Cir. 2013) (“It is not\\nappropriate to grant summary judgment based on facts the\\nmoving party did not rely on, at least without giving the los-\\ning party advance notice and an opportunity to be heard.”).\\nThe court should have given the parties notice of some sort\\nbefore it entered summary judgment for Wexford. See, e.g.,\\n\\fNo. 18-2351 11\\n\\nBaemmert v. Credit One Bank, N.A., 271 F. Supp. 3d 1043, 1053,\\n1054 (W.D. Wis. 2017) (giving the plaintiff one week to explain\\nwhy the court should not grant summary judgment); Cook v.\\nKnight (In re Knight), 574 B.R. 800, 818 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2017)\\n(giving the plaintiff 24 days to show cause why the court\\nshould not grant summary judgment).\\n Nevertheless, that technical error does not compel a re-\\nmand. Summary judgment for Wexford was clearly appropri-\\nate because Gabb has no evidence of harm. A plaintiff can\\nbring a Monell-style claim against a private corporation acting\\nunder color of state law. Whiting v. Wexford Health Sources,\\nInc., 839 F.3d 658, 664 (7th Cir. 2016). To be liable, the corpo-\\nration must have “maintained an unconstitutional policy or\\ncustom.” Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768, 780 (7th Cir. 2015).\\nThat policy or custom must cause the injury that is the basis\\nof the plaintiff’s § 1983 claim. See Woodward v. Correctional\\nMed. Servs. of Ill., Inc., 368 F.3d 917, 928 (7th Cir. 2004). Because\\nGabb cannot show he suffered any injury based on his medi-\\ncal treatment at Lawrence, he cannot show any Wexford pol-\\nicy or custom harmed him. Accordingly, his claim against\\nWexford is bound to fail. As we know Gabb cannot win, we\\nwill not go through the pointless exercise of remanding the\\ncase. See Hassebrock v. Bernhoft, 815 F.3d 334, 343 n.3 (7th Cir.\\n2016) (declining to “remand a case for trial when we know the\\nplaintiffs cannot win,” calling it “a waste of time, money, and\\njudicial resources”).\\n III.\\n The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4407583/\", \"author_raw\": \"Daniel Anthony Manion\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"RIPPLE"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"MANION"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"SYKES"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"RIPPLE\": \", Circuit\", \"MANION\": \", Circuit\", \"SYKES\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4630330/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":6,"string":"6"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Tyrone Gabb v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-06-17\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-2351\nTYRONE GABB,\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\n v.\n\nWEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES,\nINC., et al.,\n Defendants-Appellees.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Southern District of Illinois\n No. 15-cv-01415 — J. Phil Gilbert, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED MARCH 28, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 17, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before RIPPLE, MANION, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.\n MANION, Circuit Judge. While serving a prison sentence at\nthe Lawrence Correctional Center in Illinois, Tyrone Gabb ex-\nperienced severe back pain whenever he stood too long (15 to\n20 minutes). After treatments he received did not relieve his\npain, Gabb sued two members of the medical staff at Law-\nrence, Dr. John Coe and Nurse Tammy Kimmel, alleging they\nwere deliberately indifferent to his back pain in violation of\n\f2 No. 18-2351\n\nhis constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual pun-\nishments. Gabb also sued Wexford Health Sources, Inc., the\nprivate company that provided medical services at Lawrence.\nThe district court granted summary judgment to all defend-\nants, and Gabb appeals. Because Gabb has not presented any\nevidence showing the defendants caused him any harm, we\naffirm.\n I.\n This case comes to us on appeal from the grant of sum-\nmary judgment, so we present the facts “in the light most fa-\nvorable to [Gabb] and draw all inferences in [Gabb’s] favor.”\nEstate of Simpson v. Gorbett, 863 F.3d 740, 745 (7th Cir. 2017).\n Dr. Coe was the medical director at Lawrence. He first saw\nGabb for back pain in January 2014. Coe performed an x-ray,\nbut he did not prescribe medication. When he saw Gabb a\nmonth later, Coe confirmed Gabb had pain in his lower back,\nbut he again did not prescribe medication.\n In September 2014, Gabb underwent another x-ray. This\ntime, Coe diagnosed Gabb with chronic back pain and pre-\nscribed the painkiller Motrin and the muscle-relaxer Robaxin.\nWhen Gabb saw Coe again a month later, he told Coe the\nmedications did little. Coe ordered Gabb a back support and\nchanged Gabb’s painkiller prescription from Motrin to\nNaproxen. Later that month, Gabb complained to a nurse the\nback support and the painkillers were not providing relief. In\nFebruary 2015, a physician’s assistant discontinued Gabb’s\nNaproxen and prescribed Tylenol instead.\n In March 2015, Gabb reported to the infirmary with ab-\ndominal pain and encountered Nurse Kimmel. Gabb told\n\fNo. 18-2351 3\n\nKimmel he had osteoarthritis in his lower back and he be-\nlieved the Tylenol was causing his stomach pain. He re-\nquested a referral to a doctor so he could get a different med-\nication. Because Gabb’s reason for seeking treatment was ab-\ndominal pain, the only medication Kimmel could have ad-\nministered pursuant to protocol was an antacid. Kimmel did\nnot refer Gabb to a doctor or give him an antacid, but instead\ntold him “to (1) lower his dose of Tylenol; (2) drink plenty of\nfluids and eat properly; (3) plan on attending his follow-up\nappointment with the physician’s assistant in June; and (4)\ncome back to the infirmary if his symptoms worsened.”\n In early April 2015, Gabb reported to the infirmary again\ncomplaining of abdominal pain he believed was caused by the\nTylenol. Gabb testified in his deposition that as he came to the\nroom, Kimmel “immediately notified [him] that she was not\ngoing to refer [him] to any physician because [he] was not in\npain.” Gabb says he tried to tell Kimmel about his back pain,\nbut “she verbally abused” and swore at him. She did not refer\nGabb to a physician or consult with one concerning an appro-\npriate course of treatment.\n At the end of April, Gabb reported to the infirmary for ab-\ndominal pain a third time. On this occasion, because he had\nreported more than twice with the same complaint, he re-\nceived a referral to Dr. Coe. When he saw Coe a week later,\nCoe re-prescribed Naproxen, prescribed Vitamin D (which\nCoe believed could help with muscle spasms and tightness),\nand tightened Gabb’s back support. Coe told Gabb better\ntreatment was available, but Wexford would not pay for it.\n Coe saw Gabb again in the summer of 2015. Gabb com-\nplained the Naproxen was not working. Coe tightened Gabb’s\n\f4 No. 18-2351\n\nback brace, demonstrated therapy exercises that could reduce\nthe pain, and suggested Gabb exercise.\n In August 2015, a physician’s assistant saw Gabb. The\nphysician’s assistant reported Gabb’s pain was increasing and\nhe suffered from a decreased range of motion. Gabb also had\na slower gait and reported tingling in his toes. The physician’s\nassistant prescribed Mobic, an anti-inflammatory drug.\n In September 2015, Coe saw Gabb again. Gabb reported\nthe pain was creeping into his middle back from his lower\nback. Coe discontinued the Mobic and re-prescribed Robaxin.\nIn October 2015, Coe diagnosed Gabb with mild degenerative\ndisk disease and again prescribed Robaxin. He again told\nGabb better treatments were available, but he would not refer\nGabb because those treatments were too expensive. He also\ntold Gabb that Wexford did not run a pain clinic. Later that\nmonth, Coe again prescribed Naproxen. In November 2015,\nCoe declined a low-bunk request for Gabb. That was the last\nof Coe’s interactions with Gabb. At the time of his deposition\nin 2017, Gabb testified he was under the care of a different\nphysician and was still prescribed Naproxen, though he was\nnot taking it because it was ineffective.\n Gabb sued Coe, Kimmel, and their employer, Wexford, in\nDecember 2015, claiming they violated his right to be free\nfrom cruel and unusual punishments. The district court re-\nferred the case to a magistrate judge. Coe and Kimmel moved\nfor summary judgment. The magistrate judge recommended\ndenying the motion. The judge found evidence showing Gabb\nsuffered from a serious medical condition. The judge con-\ncluded a reasonable jury could find Coe was deliberately in-\ndifferent to that condition because he continued to prescribe\nthe same medication knowing it was ineffective and made\n\fNo. 18-2351 5\n\ntreatment decisions based on costs, not medical judgment.\nThe judge also concluded a reasonable jury could find Kim-\nmel deliberately indifferent because she was aware of Gabb’s\nback pain, yet refused to provide any medication or refer\nGabb to a doctor.\n Coe and Kimmel objected to the magistrate judge’s con-\nclusions on deliberate indifference. The district court sus-\ntained the objections, rejected the magistrate judge’s recom-\nmendation, and granted the motion for summary judgment.\nIn doing so, the district court catalogued the medical care Coe\nprovided Gabb, concluding it represented a “thorough exer-\ncise of medical discretion via numerous treatment strategies,”\nnot “dogged persistence.” The district court wrote off Coe’s\ncomments about the availability of “better treatment” because\n“[a]ll of the evidence indicates that Dr. Coe’s medical treat-\nment of Gabb involved the exercise of medical discretion and\nwas not blatantly inappropriate.” The district court also con-\ncluded Kimmel had provided constitutionally sufficient care;\nGabb was just disagreeing with his treatment plan by request-\ning a different pain medication. Having concluded there was\nno underlying constitutional violation, the district court\ngranted summary judgment sua sponte to Wexford.\n II.\n Gabb appeals the entry of summary judgment for the de-\nfendants. We review de novo. Estate of Simpson, 863 F.3d at 745.\nWe will affirm “if the movant shows that there is no genuine\ndispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to\njudgment as a matter of law.” See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). “By its\nvery terms, this standard provides that the mere existence of\nsome alleged factual dispute between the parties will not de-\nfeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary\n\f6 No. 18-2351\n\njudgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of\nmaterial fact.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247–\n48 (1986). Thus, “summary judgment must be entered ‘against\na party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the\nexistence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on\nwhich that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.’” Cooper\nv. Lane, 969 F.2d 368, 371 (7th Cir. 1992) (quoting Celotex Corp.\nv. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986)). “We may affirm the grant\nof summary judgment on any ground supported by the rec-\nord, as long as the parties adequately presented the issue be-\nfore the district court and the nonmoving party had an oppor-\ntunity to contest it.” de Lima Silva v. Dept. of Corrections, 917\nF.3d 546, 558 (7th Cir. 2019).\nA. Coe and Kimmel\n Gabb brings this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which creates\na tort remedy for those injured by the deprivation of a consti-\ntutional right. See Roe v. Elyea, 631 F.3d 843, 863–64 (7th Cir.\n2011). In order to succeed in a § 1983 suit, a plaintiff must “es-\ntablish not only that a state actor violated his constitutional\nrights, but also that the violation caused the plaintiff injury or\ndamages.” Id. at 864.\n Gabb claims his medical treatment at Lawrence violated\nhis right to be free from cruel and unusual punishments. The\nEighth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads:\n“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines im-\nposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” The Su-\npreme Court tells us the proscription of cruel and unusual\npunishments creates an “obligation to provide medical care”\nto prisoners. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102–03 (1976); John-\nson v. Doughty, 433 F.3d 1001, 1010 (7th Cir. 2006). This does\nnot mean prisoners are “entitled to receive unqualified access\n\fNo. 18-2351 7\n\nto healthcare.” Burton v. Downey, 805 F.3d 776, 785 (7th Cir.\n2015) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Hudson v.\nMcMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992)). Nor does it turn medical mal-\npractice into a constitutional violation. See Snipes v. DeTella, 95\nF.3d 586, 590–91 (7th Cir. 1996) (“Such matters are questions\nof tort, not constitutional law.”). Instead, the Eighth Amend-\nment, as the Supreme Court has interpreted it, “protects pris-\noners from prison conditions that cause ‘the wanton and un-\nnecessary infliction of pain,’ including … grossly inadequate\nmedical care.” Pyles v. Fahim, 771 F.3d 403, 408 (7th Cir. 2014)\n(citations omitted) (quoting Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337,\n347 (1981)).\n We use a two-part test to determine if medical care\namounted to cruel and unusual punishment. Petties v. Carter,\n836 F.3d 722, 727–28 (7th Cir. 2016) (en banc). We ask\n“whether a plaintiff suffered from an objectively serious med-\nical condition” and “whether the individual defendant was\ndeliberately indifferent to that condition.” Id. at 728.\n In this case, the magistrate judge found evidence to con-\nclude Gabb’s back pain qualified as an objectively serious\nmedical condition. Coe and Kimmel did not object to that\nfinding to the district court, and do not argue the point here.\nSee generally Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th\nCir. 1999) (“If a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s re-\nport and recommendation in the district court, in this Circuit\nhe waives appellate review of both factual and legal ques-\ntions.”). So, we turn to deliberate indifference.\n In Petties, this court, sitting en banc, expounded on the de-\nliberate indifference standard at length. 836 F.3d at 728–31.\n“[D]eliberate indifference” requires a “subjective state of\nmind” somewhere between negligence and intention. Id. at\n\f8 No. 18-2351\n\n728. To show deliberate indifference, “a plaintiff must pro-\nvide evidence that an official actually knew of and disre-\ngarded a substantial risk of harm.” Id.\n Gabb charges Coe and Kimmel with deliberate indiffer-\nence. He maintains Coe was deliberately indifferent by per-\nsisting in a course of ineffective treatment despite available\nalternatives because of cost, and he maintains Kimmel was\ndeliberately indifferent by failing to refer him to a physician\nor prescribe him pain medication. However, we need not de-\ncide whether Coe and Kimmel’s conduct rose to the level of\ndeliberate indifference because, even if it did, Gabb has not\nshown an injury as a result of their actions.\n 1. Coe\n Gabb has not presented any evidence by which a jury\ncould reasonably find Gabb experienced harm at Coe’s hands.\nGabb’s entire argument is he suffered because of Coe’s refusal\nto adopt a “better” course of treatment because it was too ex-\npensive. But Gabb does not tell us what that specific treatment\nwas or how it would have alleviated his back pain. Gabb tes-\ntified Coe mentioned surgery and medications (though he\ncannot remember which ones) and now tells us the “better”\ntreatment could also have been cortisone shots or a referral to\na specialist, but he provides no details. And even if he was\nmore specific about the “better” treatments, Gabb has no evi-\ndence that any course of treatment, be it as simple as referral\nto a chiropractor or as involved as surgery at the finest hospi-\ntal in Illinois, would have provided him any relief from his\nchronic back pain. See Petties, 836 F.3d at 733 (concluding the\nplaintiff could not pursue his claim against the prison doctor\nfor failing “to explore surgery as an option” in part because\n\fNo. 18-2351 9\n\nthe plaintiff “did not produce medical evidence confirming\nthat he would have benefited from surgery”).\n It is not enough that Coe referred to these other, unknown\ntreatments as “better.” “Better” is not synonymous with\n“good” or “effective.” Most people would consider falling\nfrom five feet as better than falling from twenty, but neither\nwould likely be good for one’s health. Gabb’s evidence sug-\ngesting his condition declined during the relevant time pe-\nriod—he suffered a reduced range of motion, experienced tin-\ngling in his toes, and the pain spread to his middle back—is\nalso insufficient to show harm as a result of Coe’s treatment.\nHe has no evidence by which a reasonable jury could con-\nclude Coe’s alleged failure to refer him to “better” treatment\ncaused that decline. See Langston v. Peters, 100 F.3d 1235, 1240\n(7th Cir. 1996) (“[A]n inmate who complains that delay in\nmedical treatment rose to a constitutional violation must\nplace verifying medical evidence in the record to establish the\ndetrimental effect of delay in medical treatment to succeed.”\n(quoting Beyerbach v. Sears, 49 F.3d 1324, 1326 (8th Cir. 1995))).\n At oral argument, Gabb compared his situation to that of\nthe plaintiff in Berry v. Peterman, 604 F.3d 435, 438–39 (7th Cir.\n2010), whose persistent complaints of tooth pain were even-\ntually remedied by a root canal. But unlike the plaintiff in\nBerry, Gabb cannot show he suffered from “serious but avoid-\nable pain.” Id. at 438 (emphasis added). There is no evidence\nCoe’s decision to continue conservative forms of treatment in\nany way negatively affected Gabb’s health.\n The lack of evidence of what the “better” treatments were\nand whether they would have been effective would leave a\njury entirely to its own imagination about what could have\n\f10 No. 18-2351\n\nbeen done. Such unmitigated speculation cannot defeat sum-\nmary judgment. See Austin v. Walgreen Co., 885 F.3d 1085, 1089\n(7th Cir. 2018).\n 2. Kimmel\n The same evidentiary deficiency dooms Gabb’s claim\nagainst Kimmel. Gabb faults Kimmel for not referring him to\na doctor or giving him a different pain medication when Kim-\nmel saw him in 2015. But even if those omissions amounted\nto deliberate indifference, there is no evidence they harmed\nGabb. Gabb has presented nothing suggesting that if he had\nseen a doctor or received different medication soon after see-\ning Kimmel it would have reduced his back pain. See Lang-\nston, 100 F.3d at 1240. With no evidence that Kimmel’s con-\nduct harmed him, he is not entitled to recovery under § 1983.\nB. Wexford\n We must also address the district court’s sua sponte grant\nof summary judgment to Wexford. The court’s authority to\nenter judgment sua sponte comes from Federal Rule of Civil\nProcedure 56(f), which provides: “After giving notice and a rea-\nsonable time to respond, the court may: (1) grant summary judg-\nment for a nonmovant … ” (emphasis added).\n We emphasize the prefatory phrase because the district\ncourt did not give notice of its intent to grant summary judg-\nment for Wexford before it did so. That was error. Cf. Williams\nv. City of Chicago, 733 F.3d 749, 755 (7th Cir. 2013) (“It is not\nappropriate to grant summary judgment based on facts the\nmoving party did not rely on, at least without giving the los-\ning party advance notice and an opportunity to be heard.”).\nThe court should have given the parties notice of some sort\nbefore it entered summary judgment for Wexford. See, e.g.,\n\fNo. 18-2351 11\n\nBaemmert v. Credit One Bank, N.A., 271 F. Supp. 3d 1043, 1053,\n1054 (W.D. Wis. 2017) (giving the plaintiff one week to explain\nwhy the court should not grant summary judgment); Cook v.\nKnight (In re Knight), 574 B.R. 800, 818 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2017)\n(giving the plaintiff 24 days to show cause why the court\nshould not grant summary judgment).\n Nevertheless, that technical error does not compel a re-\nmand. Summary judgment for Wexford was clearly appropri-\nate because Gabb has no evidence of harm. A plaintiff can\nbring a Monell-style claim against a private corporation acting\nunder color of state law. Whiting v. Wexford Health Sources,\nInc., 839 F.3d 658, 664 (7th Cir. 2016). To be liable, the corpo-\nration must have “maintained an unconstitutional policy or\ncustom.” Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768, 780 (7th Cir. 2015).\nThat policy or custom must cause the injury that is the basis\nof the plaintiff’s § 1983 claim. See Woodward v. Correctional\nMed. Servs. of Ill., Inc., 368 F.3d 917, 928 (7th Cir. 2004). Because\nGabb cannot show he suffered any injury based on his medi-\ncal treatment at Lawrence, he cannot show any Wexford pol-\nicy or custom harmed him. Accordingly, his claim against\nWexford is bound to fail. As we know Gabb cannot win, we\nwill not go through the pointless exercise of remanding the\ncase. See Hassebrock v. Bernhoft, 815 F.3d 334, 343 n.3 (7th Cir.\n2016) (declining to “remand a case for trial when we know the\nplaintiffs cannot win,” calling it “a waste of time, money, and\njudicial resources”).\n III.\n The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Tyrone Gabb v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-06-17\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-2351\\nTYRONE GABB,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nWEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES,\\nINC., et al.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Southern District of Illinois\\n No. 15-cv-01415 — J. Phil Gilbert, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED MARCH 28, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 17, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before RIPPLE, MANION, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.\\n MANION, Circuit Judge. While serving a prison sentence at\\nthe Lawrence Correctional Center in Illinois, Tyrone Gabb ex-\\nperienced severe back pain whenever he stood too long (15 to\\n20 minutes). After treatments he received did not relieve his\\npain, Gabb sued two members of the medical staff at Law-\\nrence, Dr. John Coe and Nurse Tammy Kimmel, alleging they\\nwere deliberately indifferent to his back pain in violation of\\n\\f2 No. 18-2351\\n\\nhis constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual pun-\\nishments. Gabb also sued Wexford Health Sources, Inc., the\\nprivate company that provided medical services at Lawrence.\\nThe district court granted summary judgment to all defend-\\nants, and Gabb appeals. Because Gabb has not presented any\\nevidence showing the defendants caused him any harm, we\\naffirm.\\n I.\\n This case comes to us on appeal from the grant of sum-\\nmary judgment, so we present the facts “in the light most fa-\\nvorable to [Gabb] and draw all inferences in [Gabb’s] favor.”\\nEstate of Simpson v. Gorbett, 863 F.3d 740, 745 (7th Cir. 2017).\\n Dr. Coe was the medical director at Lawrence. He first saw\\nGabb for back pain in January 2014. Coe performed an x-ray,\\nbut he did not prescribe medication. When he saw Gabb a\\nmonth later, Coe confirmed Gabb had pain in his lower back,\\nbut he again did not prescribe medication.\\n In September 2014, Gabb underwent another x-ray. This\\ntime, Coe diagnosed Gabb with chronic back pain and pre-\\nscribed the painkiller Motrin and the muscle-relaxer Robaxin.\\nWhen Gabb saw Coe again a month later, he told Coe the\\nmedications did little. Coe ordered Gabb a back support and\\nchanged Gabb’s painkiller prescription from Motrin to\\nNaproxen. Later that month, Gabb complained to a nurse the\\nback support and the painkillers were not providing relief. In\\nFebruary 2015, a physician’s assistant discontinued Gabb’s\\nNaproxen and prescribed Tylenol instead.\\n In March 2015, Gabb reported to the infirmary with ab-\\ndominal pain and encountered Nurse Kimmel. Gabb told\\n\\fNo. 18-2351 3\\n\\nKimmel he had osteoarthritis in his lower back and he be-\\nlieved the Tylenol was causing his stomach pain. He re-\\nquested a referral to a doctor so he could get a different med-\\nication. Because Gabb’s reason for seeking treatment was ab-\\ndominal pain, the only medication Kimmel could have ad-\\nministered pursuant to protocol was an antacid. Kimmel did\\nnot refer Gabb to a doctor or give him an antacid, but instead\\ntold him “to (1) lower his dose of Tylenol; (2) drink plenty of\\nfluids and eat properly; (3) plan on attending his follow-up\\nappointment with the physician’s assistant in June; and (4)\\ncome back to the infirmary if his symptoms worsened.”\\n In early April 2015, Gabb reported to the infirmary again\\ncomplaining of abdominal pain he believed was caused by the\\nTylenol. Gabb testified in his deposition that as he came to the\\nroom, Kimmel “immediately notified [him] that she was not\\ngoing to refer [him] to any physician because [he] was not in\\npain.” Gabb says he tried to tell Kimmel about his back pain,\\nbut “she verbally abused” and swore at him. She did not refer\\nGabb to a physician or consult with one concerning an appro-\\npriate course of treatment.\\n At the end of April, Gabb reported to the infirmary for ab-\\ndominal pain a third time. On this occasion, because he had\\nreported more than twice with the same complaint, he re-\\nceived a referral to Dr. Coe. When he saw Coe a week later,\\nCoe re-prescribed Naproxen, prescribed Vitamin D (which\\nCoe believed could help with muscle spasms and tightness),\\nand tightened Gabb’s back support. Coe told Gabb better\\ntreatment was available, but Wexford would not pay for it.\\n Coe saw Gabb again in the summer of 2015. Gabb com-\\nplained the Naproxen was not working. Coe tightened Gabb’s\\n\\f4 No. 18-2351\\n\\nback brace, demonstrated therapy exercises that could reduce\\nthe pain, and suggested Gabb exercise.\\n In August 2015, a physician’s assistant saw Gabb. The\\nphysician’s assistant reported Gabb’s pain was increasing and\\nhe suffered from a decreased range of motion. Gabb also had\\na slower gait and reported tingling in his toes. The physician’s\\nassistant prescribed Mobic, an anti-inflammatory drug.\\n In September 2015, Coe saw Gabb again. Gabb reported\\nthe pain was creeping into his middle back from his lower\\nback. Coe discontinued the Mobic and re-prescribed Robaxin.\\nIn October 2015, Coe diagnosed Gabb with mild degenerative\\ndisk disease and again prescribed Robaxin. He again told\\nGabb better treatments were available, but he would not refer\\nGabb because those treatments were too expensive. He also\\ntold Gabb that Wexford did not run a pain clinic. Later that\\nmonth, Coe again prescribed Naproxen. In November 2015,\\nCoe declined a low-bunk request for Gabb. That was the last\\nof Coe’s interactions with Gabb. At the time of his deposition\\nin 2017, Gabb testified he was under the care of a different\\nphysician and was still prescribed Naproxen, though he was\\nnot taking it because it was ineffective.\\n Gabb sued Coe, Kimmel, and their employer, Wexford, in\\nDecember 2015, claiming they violated his right to be free\\nfrom cruel and unusual punishments. The district court re-\\nferred the case to a magistrate judge. Coe and Kimmel moved\\nfor summary judgment. The magistrate judge recommended\\ndenying the motion. The judge found evidence showing Gabb\\nsuffered from a serious medical condition. The judge con-\\ncluded a reasonable jury could find Coe was deliberately in-\\ndifferent to that condition because he continued to prescribe\\nthe same medication knowing it was ineffective and made\\n\\fNo. 18-2351 5\\n\\ntreatment decisions based on costs, not medical judgment.\\nThe judge also concluded a reasonable jury could find Kim-\\nmel deliberately indifferent because she was aware of Gabb’s\\nback pain, yet refused to provide any medication or refer\\nGabb to a doctor.\\n Coe and Kimmel objected to the magistrate judge’s con-\\nclusions on deliberate indifference. The district court sus-\\ntained the objections, rejected the magistrate judge’s recom-\\nmendation, and granted the motion for summary judgment.\\nIn doing so, the district court catalogued the medical care Coe\\nprovided Gabb, concluding it represented a “thorough exer-\\ncise of medical discretion via numerous treatment strategies,”\\nnot “dogged persistence.” The district court wrote off Coe’s\\ncomments about the availability of “better treatment” because\\n“[a]ll of the evidence indicates that Dr. Coe’s medical treat-\\nment of Gabb involved the exercise of medical discretion and\\nwas not blatantly inappropriate.” The district court also con-\\ncluded Kimmel had provided constitutionally sufficient care;\\nGabb was just disagreeing with his treatment plan by request-\\ning a different pain medication. Having concluded there was\\nno underlying constitutional violation, the district court\\ngranted summary judgment sua sponte to Wexford.\\n II.\\n Gabb appeals the entry of summary judgment for the de-\\nfendants. We review de novo. Estate of Simpson, 863 F.3d at 745.\\nWe will affirm “if the movant shows that there is no genuine\\ndispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to\\njudgment as a matter of law.” See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). “By its\\nvery terms, this standard provides that the mere existence of\\nsome alleged factual dispute between the parties will not de-\\nfeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary\\n\\f6 No. 18-2351\\n\\njudgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of\\nmaterial fact.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247–\\n48 (1986). Thus, “summary judgment must be entered ‘against\\na party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the\\nexistence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on\\nwhich that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.’” Cooper\\nv. Lane, 969 F.2d 368, 371 (7th Cir. 1992) (quoting Celotex Corp.\\nv. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986)). “We may affirm the grant\\nof summary judgment on any ground supported by the rec-\\nord, as long as the parties adequately presented the issue be-\\nfore the district court and the nonmoving party had an oppor-\\ntunity to contest it.” de Lima Silva v. Dept. of Corrections, 917\\nF.3d 546, 558 (7th Cir. 2019).\\nA. Coe and Kimmel\\n Gabb brings this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which creates\\na tort remedy for those injured by the deprivation of a consti-\\ntutional right. See Roe v. Elyea, 631 F.3d 843, 863–64 (7th Cir.\\n2011). In order to succeed in a § 1983 suit, a plaintiff must “es-\\ntablish not only that a state actor violated his constitutional\\nrights, but also that the violation caused the plaintiff injury or\\ndamages.” Id. at 864.\\n Gabb claims his medical treatment at Lawrence violated\\nhis right to be free from cruel and unusual punishments. The\\nEighth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads:\\n“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines im-\\nposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” The Su-\\npreme Court tells us the proscription of cruel and unusual\\npunishments creates an “obligation to provide medical care”\\nto prisoners. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102–03 (1976); John-\\nson v. Doughty, 433 F.3d 1001, 1010 (7th Cir. 2006). This does\\nnot mean prisoners are “entitled to receive unqualified access\\n\\fNo. 18-2351 7\\n\\nto healthcare.” Burton v. Downey, 805 F.3d 776, 785 (7th Cir.\\n2015) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Hudson v.\\nMcMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992)). Nor does it turn medical mal-\\npractice into a constitutional violation. See Snipes v. DeTella, 95\\nF.3d 586, 590–91 (7th Cir. 1996) (“Such matters are questions\\nof tort, not constitutional law.”). Instead, the Eighth Amend-\\nment, as the Supreme Court has interpreted it, “protects pris-\\noners from prison conditions that cause ‘the wanton and un-\\nnecessary infliction of pain,’ including … grossly inadequate\\nmedical care.” Pyles v. Fahim, 771 F.3d 403, 408 (7th Cir. 2014)\\n(citations omitted) (quoting Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337,\\n347 (1981)).\\n We use a two-part test to determine if medical care\\namounted to cruel and unusual punishment. Petties v. Carter,\\n836 F.3d 722, 727–28 (7th Cir. 2016) (en banc). We ask\\n“whether a plaintiff suffered from an objectively serious med-\\nical condition” and “whether the individual defendant was\\ndeliberately indifferent to that condition.” Id. at 728.\\n In this case, the magistrate judge found evidence to con-\\nclude Gabb’s back pain qualified as an objectively serious\\nmedical condition. Coe and Kimmel did not object to that\\nfinding to the district court, and do not argue the point here.\\nSee generally Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th\\nCir. 1999) (“If a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s re-\\nport and recommendation in the district court, in this Circuit\\nhe waives appellate review of both factual and legal ques-\\ntions.”). So, we turn to deliberate indifference.\\n In Petties, this court, sitting en banc, expounded on the de-\\nliberate indifference standard at length. 836 F.3d at 728–31.\\n“[D]eliberate indifference” requires a “subjective state of\\nmind” somewhere between negligence and intention. Id. at\\n\\f8 No. 18-2351\\n\\n728. To show deliberate indifference, “a plaintiff must pro-\\nvide evidence that an official actually knew of and disre-\\ngarded a substantial risk of harm.” Id.\\n Gabb charges Coe and Kimmel with deliberate indiffer-\\nence. He maintains Coe was deliberately indifferent by per-\\nsisting in a course of ineffective treatment despite available\\nalternatives because of cost, and he maintains Kimmel was\\ndeliberately indifferent by failing to refer him to a physician\\nor prescribe him pain medication. However, we need not de-\\ncide whether Coe and Kimmel’s conduct rose to the level of\\ndeliberate indifference because, even if it did, Gabb has not\\nshown an injury as a result of their actions.\\n 1. Coe\\n Gabb has not presented any evidence by which a jury\\ncould reasonably find Gabb experienced harm at Coe’s hands.\\nGabb’s entire argument is he suffered because of Coe’s refusal\\nto adopt a “better” course of treatment because it was too ex-\\npensive. But Gabb does not tell us what that specific treatment\\nwas or how it would have alleviated his back pain. Gabb tes-\\ntified Coe mentioned surgery and medications (though he\\ncannot remember which ones) and now tells us the “better”\\ntreatment could also have been cortisone shots or a referral to\\na specialist, but he provides no details. And even if he was\\nmore specific about the “better” treatments, Gabb has no evi-\\ndence that any course of treatment, be it as simple as referral\\nto a chiropractor or as involved as surgery at the finest hospi-\\ntal in Illinois, would have provided him any relief from his\\nchronic back pain. See Petties, 836 F.3d at 733 (concluding the\\nplaintiff could not pursue his claim against the prison doctor\\nfor failing “to explore surgery as an option” in part because\\n\\fNo. 18-2351 9\\n\\nthe plaintiff “did not produce medical evidence confirming\\nthat he would have benefited from surgery”).\\n It is not enough that Coe referred to these other, unknown\\ntreatments as “better.” “Better” is not synonymous with\\n“good” or “effective.” Most people would consider falling\\nfrom five feet as better than falling from twenty, but neither\\nwould likely be good for one’s health. Gabb’s evidence sug-\\ngesting his condition declined during the relevant time pe-\\nriod—he suffered a reduced range of motion, experienced tin-\\ngling in his toes, and the pain spread to his middle back—is\\nalso insufficient to show harm as a result of Coe’s treatment.\\nHe has no evidence by which a reasonable jury could con-\\nclude Coe’s alleged failure to refer him to “better” treatment\\ncaused that decline. See Langston v. Peters, 100 F.3d 1235, 1240\\n(7th Cir. 1996) (“[A]n inmate who complains that delay in\\nmedical treatment rose to a constitutional violation must\\nplace verifying medical evidence in the record to establish the\\ndetrimental effect of delay in medical treatment to succeed.”\\n(quoting Beyerbach v. Sears, 49 F.3d 1324, 1326 (8th Cir. 1995))).\\n At oral argument, Gabb compared his situation to that of\\nthe plaintiff in Berry v. Peterman, 604 F.3d 435, 438–39 (7th Cir.\\n2010), whose persistent complaints of tooth pain were even-\\ntually remedied by a root canal. But unlike the plaintiff in\\nBerry, Gabb cannot show he suffered from “serious but avoid-\\nable pain.” Id. at 438 (emphasis added). There is no evidence\\nCoe’s decision to continue conservative forms of treatment in\\nany way negatively affected Gabb’s health.\\n The lack of evidence of what the “better” treatments were\\nand whether they would have been effective would leave a\\njury entirely to its own imagination about what could have\\n\\f10 No. 18-2351\\n\\nbeen done. Such unmitigated speculation cannot defeat sum-\\nmary judgment. See Austin v. Walgreen Co., 885 F.3d 1085, 1089\\n(7th Cir. 2018).\\n 2. Kimmel\\n The same evidentiary deficiency dooms Gabb’s claim\\nagainst Kimmel. Gabb faults Kimmel for not referring him to\\na doctor or giving him a different pain medication when Kim-\\nmel saw him in 2015. But even if those omissions amounted\\nto deliberate indifference, there is no evidence they harmed\\nGabb. Gabb has presented nothing suggesting that if he had\\nseen a doctor or received different medication soon after see-\\ning Kimmel it would have reduced his back pain. See Lang-\\nston, 100 F.3d at 1240. With no evidence that Kimmel’s con-\\nduct harmed him, he is not entitled to recovery under § 1983.\\nB. Wexford\\n We must also address the district court’s sua sponte grant\\nof summary judgment to Wexford. The court’s authority to\\nenter judgment sua sponte comes from Federal Rule of Civil\\nProcedure 56(f), which provides: “After giving notice and a rea-\\nsonable time to respond, the court may: (1) grant summary judg-\\nment for a nonmovant … ” (emphasis added).\\n We emphasize the prefatory phrase because the district\\ncourt did not give notice of its intent to grant summary judg-\\nment for Wexford before it did so. That was error. Cf. Williams\\nv. City of Chicago, 733 F.3d 749, 755 (7th Cir. 2013) (“It is not\\nappropriate to grant summary judgment based on facts the\\nmoving party did not rely on, at least without giving the los-\\ning party advance notice and an opportunity to be heard.”).\\nThe court should have given the parties notice of some sort\\nbefore it entered summary judgment for Wexford. See, e.g.,\\n\\fNo. 18-2351 11\\n\\nBaemmert v. Credit One Bank, N.A., 271 F. Supp. 3d 1043, 1053,\\n1054 (W.D. Wis. 2017) (giving the plaintiff one week to explain\\nwhy the court should not grant summary judgment); Cook v.\\nKnight (In re Knight), 574 B.R. 800, 818 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2017)\\n(giving the plaintiff 24 days to show cause why the court\\nshould not grant summary judgment).\\n Nevertheless, that technical error does not compel a re-\\nmand. Summary judgment for Wexford was clearly appropri-\\nate because Gabb has no evidence of harm. A plaintiff can\\nbring a Monell-style claim against a private corporation acting\\nunder color of state law. Whiting v. Wexford Health Sources,\\nInc., 839 F.3d 658, 664 (7th Cir. 2016). To be liable, the corpo-\\nration must have “maintained an unconstitutional policy or\\ncustom.” Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768, 780 (7th Cir. 2015).\\nThat policy or custom must cause the injury that is the basis\\nof the plaintiff’s § 1983 claim. See Woodward v. Correctional\\nMed. Servs. of Ill., Inc., 368 F.3d 917, 928 (7th Cir. 2004). Because\\nGabb cannot show he suffered any injury based on his medi-\\ncal treatment at Lawrence, he cannot show any Wexford pol-\\nicy or custom harmed him. Accordingly, his claim against\\nWexford is bound to fail. As we know Gabb cannot win, we\\nwill not go through the pointless exercise of remanding the\\ncase. See Hassebrock v. Bernhoft, 815 F.3d 334, 343 n.3 (7th Cir.\\n2016) (declining to “remand a case for trial when we know the\\nplaintiffs cannot win,” calling it “a waste of time, money, and\\njudicial resources”).\\n III.\\n The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2594,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4630331,"string":"4,630,331"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Catherine Wanko v. Board of Trustees of Indiana U"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-06-17"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-2767"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before RIPPLE, MANION, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Daniel Anthony Manion\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18‐2767\\nCATHERINE WANKO,\\n Plaintiff‐Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nBOARD OF TRUSTEES OF INDIANA\\nUNIVERSITY,\\n Defendant‐Appellee.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.\\n No. 16‐cv‐02789 — Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED MARCH 28, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 17, 2019\\n ____________________\\n Before RIPPLE, MANION, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.\\n MANION, Circuit Judge. Catherine Wanko brought this\\nsuit under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d,\\nalleging Indiana University (IU) discriminated against her by\\nhaving her retake her entire first‐year curriculum at IU’s\\nSchool of Dentistry. In discovery, IU produced spreadsheets\\ncontaining the demographics and grades of the students in\\nWanko’s class. Those spreadsheets showed no student, let\\nalone one outside of a protected class, was similarly situated\\n\\f2 No. 18‐2767\\n\\nto Wanko. Wanko moved to compel the production of the ac‐\\ntual student records, but that motion was denied. As Wanko\\nwas unable to show a sufficient comparator for her discrimi‐\\nnation claim, the district court granted summary judgment to\\nIU. We affirm.\\n I.\\n Wanko is a naturalized United States citizen from Came‐\\nroon. She began her dental studies at IU in Fall 2014. During\\nthe 2014–2015 school year, Wanko failed to complete success‐\\nfully two courses: Removable Prosthodontics (RP) and Single\\nTooth Indirect Restorations (STI). Based on her grades in\\nthose classes, IU allowed Wanko the opportunity to remedi‐\\nate RP in Summer 2015 and retake STI in Spring 2016.\\n A total of eight students, including Wanko, attempted to\\nremediate RP. To pass the remediation course, a student had\\nto score at least 80% on the exam. Wanko scored 71%. On June\\n22, 2015, IU notified Wanko she would have to repeat the\\nwhole first‐year curriculum. She was the only student in her\\nclass to be held back. After Wanko failed to complete her sec‐\\nond attempt at STI in Spring 2016, IU dismissed her.\\n Not long thereafter, Wanko, through counsel, reached out\\nto IU. In response, IU’s general counsel emailed Wanko’s\\ncounsel stating one other student, identified as “Student #2,”\\nalso failed STI in Spring 2015. IU’s counsel explained IU al‐\\nlowed Student #2 to proceed into the second‐year curriculum\\n“because she failed only one class and had a cumulative GPA\\nabove 2.0.” The email showed Student #2 had a Spring 2015\\nGPA of 2.131. Wanko’s GPA was 1.965.\\n Wanko brought suit in October 2016. She claimed IU dis‐\\ncriminated against her on the basis of race when it failed to\\n\\fNo. 18‐2767 3\\n\\npromote her to the second‐year curriculum.1 In her complaint,\\nWanko alleged two or three similarly situated, non‐black stu‐\\ndents were promoted when she was not. That charge was\\nbased on a conversation Wanko had with the professor who\\ntaught STI in 2015. He told her two or three students failed his\\ncourse and would retake it the next year. He did not reveal\\nany demographics about those students.\\n In discovery, Wanko sought information about the de‐\\nmographics and grades of her former classmates. In response,\\nIU produced spreadsheets showing the GPA, grades, race,\\nand gender of each student in Wanko’s class. IU did not pro‐\\nvide the students’ names, but it assigned every student a\\nnumber as an identifier. IU says it chose this method of pro‐\\nduction out of concern for its responsibilities under the Fam‐\\nily Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA),\\nwhich set up safeguards concerning the release of student in‐\\nformation. See 20 U.S.C. § 1232g. IU’s spreadsheets showed\\nonly two students had failed both RP and STI in the 2014–2015\\nschool year: Wanko and another black female, the “Student\\n#2” from the general counsel’s email (IU identifies her as “Stu‐\\ndent #57 in the spreadsheets, but we will continue to refer to\\nher as “Student #2”). Unlike Wanko, however, Student #2 suc‐\\ncessfully remediated RP and was allowed to proceed to the\\nsecond‐year curriculum despite her failing grade in STI.\\n Wanko was not satisfied with IU’s spreadsheets. She\\nmoved to compel production of the actual student records,\\nclaiming she needed them to know which white students in\\n\\n\\n 1Wanko also claimed racial discrimination motivated her dismissal\\nfrom IU in 2016. The district court dismissed that claim on IU’s motion.\\nWanko does not appeal that ruling.\\n\\f4 No. 18‐2767\\n\\nher class failed STI. She argued the spreadsheets are unrelia‐\\nble because the GPA for Student #2 is different than the GPA\\nthe general counsel had reported earlier. The general counsel\\nhad provided a GPA of 2.131, whereas the spreadsheets re‐\\nported a GPA of 2.568. Responding to Wanko’s motion, IU\\nexplained the discrepancy was because the general counsel\\nprovided Student #2’s Spring 2015 GPA, but the spreadsheets\\nprovided Student #2’s cumulative GPA.\\n A magistrate judge orally denied Wanko’s motion during\\na telephonic discovery conference. Because IU had provided\\nWanko with the demographic and grade information in the\\nspreadsheets, the judge concluded Wanko had not shown she\\nneeded the actual student records. The judge also concluded\\nWanko had not shown the spreadsheets lacked veracity. After\\nthat oral denial, Wanko filed a written motion making the\\nsame arguments, which the magistrate judge also denied.\\n Wanko objected to the district court. While that objection\\nwas pending, IU moved for summary judgment. Wanko, ra‐\\nther than responding to the motion, moved to postpone rul‐\\ning on summary judgment because of the student‐records is‐\\nsue.\\n The district court resolved all three motions in one order.\\nFirst, it overruled Wanko’s objection to the magistrate judge’s\\ndecisions, holding the magistrate judge reasonably concluded\\nthe information in the spreadsheets was sufficient. Second, it\\ndenied Wanko’s motion to postpone ruling on summary\\njudgment, finding Wanko had not shown a good faith reason\\nwhy she could not respond to IU’s motion for summary judg‐\\nment. Third, the district court granted IU’s motion for sum‐\\nmary judgment, concluding Wanko could not succeed on her\\n\\fNo. 18‐2767 5\\n\\ndiscrimination claim because she could not identify a simi‐\\nlarly situated, non‐black student who received better treat‐\\nment.\\n II.\\n In this appeal, for good reason Wanko does not contest the\\nmerits of the district court’s ruling on summary judgment. A\\ncareful review of the record before us compels the entry of\\nsummary judgment for IU. Wanko has no evidence of a simi‐\\nlarly situated, non‐black student who received better treat‐\\nment than she received. See Brewer v. Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of\\nIll., 479 F.3d 908, 921 (7th Cir. 2007) (requiring a plaintiff to\\nshow she experienced “worse treatment than that of similarly\\nsituated students not in the protected class”). The closest pos‐\\nsible comparator is Student #2, a black female who failed to\\ncomplete RP and STI on her first tries. But she, unlike Wanko,\\nmanaged to remediate RP, so she is not similarly situated to\\nWanko. See Patterson v. Avery Dennison Corp., 281 F.3d 676, 680\\n(7th Cir. 2002) (explaining a comparator must be “directly\\ncomparable to [the plaintiff] in all material respects”).\\n Because the record weighs significantly against her,\\nWanko insists parts of it are not accurate. She argues the dis‐\\ntrict court erred when it (1) overruled her objection to the\\nmagistrate judge’s decision denying her motion to compel\\ndiscovery of the actual student records and (2) denied her mo‐\\ntion to postpone summary judgment.\\n “Managing the discovery process is the district court’s\\nbusiness … .” Brill v. Lante Corp., 119 F.3d 1266, 1275 (7th Cir.\\n1997). “The district court is in the best position to decide the\\nproper scope of discovery and to settle any discovery dis‐\\nputes.” Scott v. Chuhak & Tecson, P.C., 725 F.3d 772, 785 (7th\\n\\f6 No. 18‐2767\\n\\nCir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Gile v.\\nUnited Airlines, Inc., 95 F.3d 492, 495 (7th Cir. 1996)). Accord‐\\ningly, we deferentially review discovery decisions for abuse\\nof discretion. Vallone v. CNA Fin. Corp., 375 F.3d 623, 629 (7th\\nCir. 2004). This includes decisions whether to defer ruling on\\nsummary judgment motions. See Helping Hand Caregivers, Ltd.\\nv. Darden Restaurants, Inc., 900 F.3d 884, 890 (7th Cir. 2018).\\nThere is no such abuse here.\\n Concerning the denial of Wanko’s motion to compel,\\nWanko wants actual student records to help her find a com‐\\nparator for her Title VI claim. She says IU’s spreadsheets are\\nnot acceptable because they are unreliable, pointing to the\\nGPA discrepancy relating to Student #2. But the magistrate\\njudge considered that argument and rejected it, and the dis‐\\ntrict court accepted that rejection. Wanko has given us no rea‐\\nson to conclude those decisions were beyond the bounds of\\ndiscretion.\\n We reach the same conclusion concerning the denial of\\nWanko’s motion to postpone summary judgment. Federal\\nRule of Civil Procedure 56(d) allows the district court to “de‐\\nfer consider[ation]” of a motion for summary judgment “[i]f\\na nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for spec‐\\nified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its op‐\\nposition.” Essentially, the rule requires the party facing sum‐\\nmary judgment to “make a good faith showing that it cannot\\nrespond” to the motion for summary judgment. See United\\nStates v. All Assets & Equipment of West Side Bldg. Corp., 58 F.3d\\n1181, 1190 (7th Cir. 1995) (referring to the deferral provision’s\\nformer location at subsection (f)).\\n Wanko argues she could not respond to the motion for\\nsummary judgment without the actual student records.\\n\\fNo. 18‐2767 7\\n\\nWanko certainly has a need for information about her fellow\\nclassmates (races, grades, etc.), and without such information\\ncould not meaningfully respond to a motion for summary\\njudgment. The problem for Wanko is she already has this in‐\\nformation in the spreadsheets IU provided. Having rejected\\nWanko’s argument concerning the veracity of those spread‐\\nsheets, the district court reasonably concluded Wanko had no\\nneed for the actual student records. Thus, Wanko did not pro‐\\nvide “a good faith reason” for her failure to respond to IU’s\\nmotion. It was not an abuse of discretion for the court to deny\\nWanko’s Rule 56(d) motion and rule on IU’s motion for sum‐\\nmary judgment.2\\n III.\\n As the district court did not abuse its discretion in resolv‐\\ning these discovery disputes, we AFFIRM.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 2 In her brief, Wanko couches her arguments in terms of due process,\\ni.e., without the student records she was not given “the opportunity to be\\nheard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” See Mathews v.\\nEldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976) (internal quotation marks omitted)\\n(quoting Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965)). There was no due\\nprocess violation here. The magistrate judge and the district court al‐\\nlowed Wanko to argue her discovery issues. Just because they ruled\\nagainst her on discovery matters does not mean they deprived her of due\\nprocess.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4407584/\", \"author_raw\": \"Daniel Anthony Manion\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"RIPPLE"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"MANION"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"SYKES"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"RIPPLE\": \", Circuit\", \"MANION\": \", Circuit\", \"SYKES\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4630331/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":6,"string":"6"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Catherine Wanko v. Board of Trustees of Indiana U\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-06-17\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18‐2767\nCATHERINE WANKO,\n Plaintiff‐Appellant,\n v.\n\nBOARD OF TRUSTEES OF INDIANA\nUNIVERSITY,\n Defendant‐Appellee.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.\n No. 16‐cv‐02789 — Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED MARCH 28, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 17, 2019\n ____________________\n Before RIPPLE, MANION, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.\n MANION, Circuit Judge. Catherine Wanko brought this\nsuit under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d,\nalleging Indiana University (IU) discriminated against her by\nhaving her retake her entire first‐year curriculum at IU’s\nSchool of Dentistry. In discovery, IU produced spreadsheets\ncontaining the demographics and grades of the students in\nWanko’s class. Those spreadsheets showed no student, let\nalone one outside of a protected class, was similarly situated\n\f2 No. 18‐2767\n\nto Wanko. Wanko moved to compel the production of the ac‐\ntual student records, but that motion was denied. As Wanko\nwas unable to show a sufficient comparator for her discrimi‐\nnation claim, the district court granted summary judgment to\nIU. We affirm.\n I.\n Wanko is a naturalized United States citizen from Came‐\nroon. She began her dental studies at IU in Fall 2014. During\nthe 2014–2015 school year, Wanko failed to complete success‐\nfully two courses: Removable Prosthodontics (RP) and Single\nTooth Indirect Restorations (STI). Based on her grades in\nthose classes, IU allowed Wanko the opportunity to remedi‐\nate RP in Summer 2015 and retake STI in Spring 2016.\n A total of eight students, including Wanko, attempted to\nremediate RP. To pass the remediation course, a student had\nto score at least 80% on the exam. Wanko scored 71%. On June\n22, 2015, IU notified Wanko she would have to repeat the\nwhole first‐year curriculum. She was the only student in her\nclass to be held back. After Wanko failed to complete her sec‐\nond attempt at STI in Spring 2016, IU dismissed her.\n Not long thereafter, Wanko, through counsel, reached out\nto IU. In response, IU’s general counsel emailed Wanko’s\ncounsel stating one other student, identified as “Student #2,”\nalso failed STI in Spring 2015. IU’s counsel explained IU al‐\nlowed Student #2 to proceed into the second‐year curriculum\n“because she failed only one class and had a cumulative GPA\nabove 2.0.” The email showed Student #2 had a Spring 2015\nGPA of 2.131. Wanko’s GPA was 1.965.\n Wanko brought suit in October 2016. She claimed IU dis‐\ncriminated against her on the basis of race when it failed to\n\fNo. 18‐2767 3\n\npromote her to the second‐year curriculum.1 In her complaint,\nWanko alleged two or three similarly situated, non‐black stu‐\ndents were promoted when she was not. That charge was\nbased on a conversation Wanko had with the professor who\ntaught STI in 2015. He told her two or three students failed his\ncourse and would retake it the next year. He did not reveal\nany demographics about those students.\n In discovery, Wanko sought information about the de‐\nmographics and grades of her former classmates. In response,\nIU produced spreadsheets showing the GPA, grades, race,\nand gender of each student in Wanko’s class. IU did not pro‐\nvide the students’ names, but it assigned every student a\nnumber as an identifier. IU says it chose this method of pro‐\nduction out of concern for its responsibilities under the Fam‐\nily Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA),\nwhich set up safeguards concerning the release of student in‐\nformation. See 20 U.S.C. § 1232g. IU’s spreadsheets showed\nonly two students had failed both RP and STI in the 2014–2015\nschool year: Wanko and another black female, the “Student\n#2” from the general counsel’s email (IU identifies her as “Stu‐\ndent #57 in the spreadsheets, but we will continue to refer to\nher as “Student #2”). Unlike Wanko, however, Student #2 suc‐\ncessfully remediated RP and was allowed to proceed to the\nsecond‐year curriculum despite her failing grade in STI.\n Wanko was not satisfied with IU’s spreadsheets. She\nmoved to compel production of the actual student records,\nclaiming she needed them to know which white students in\n\n\n 1Wanko also claimed racial discrimination motivated her dismissal\nfrom IU in 2016. The district court dismissed that claim on IU’s motion.\nWanko does not appeal that ruling.\n\f4 No. 18‐2767\n\nher class failed STI. She argued the spreadsheets are unrelia‐\nble because the GPA for Student #2 is different than the GPA\nthe general counsel had reported earlier. The general counsel\nhad provided a GPA of 2.131, whereas the spreadsheets re‐\nported a GPA of 2.568. Responding to Wanko’s motion, IU\nexplained the discrepancy was because the general counsel\nprovided Student #2’s Spring 2015 GPA, but the spreadsheets\nprovided Student #2’s cumulative GPA.\n A magistrate judge orally denied Wanko’s motion during\na telephonic discovery conference. Because IU had provided\nWanko with the demographic and grade information in the\nspreadsheets, the judge concluded Wanko had not shown she\nneeded the actual student records. The judge also concluded\nWanko had not shown the spreadsheets lacked veracity. After\nthat oral denial, Wanko filed a written motion making the\nsame arguments, which the magistrate judge also denied.\n Wanko objected to the district court. While that objection\nwas pending, IU moved for summary judgment. Wanko, ra‐\nther than responding to the motion, moved to postpone rul‐\ning on summary judgment because of the student‐records is‐\nsue.\n The district court resolved all three motions in one order.\nFirst, it overruled Wanko’s objection to the magistrate judge’s\ndecisions, holding the magistrate judge reasonably concluded\nthe information in the spreadsheets was sufficient. Second, it\ndenied Wanko’s motion to postpone ruling on summary\njudgment, finding Wanko had not shown a good faith reason\nwhy she could not respond to IU’s motion for summary judg‐\nment. Third, the district court granted IU’s motion for sum‐\nmary judgment, concluding Wanko could not succeed on her\n\fNo. 18‐2767 5\n\ndiscrimination claim because she could not identify a simi‐\nlarly situated, non‐black student who received better treat‐\nment.\n II.\n In this appeal, for good reason Wanko does not contest the\nmerits of the district court’s ruling on summary judgment. A\ncareful review of the record before us compels the entry of\nsummary judgment for IU. Wanko has no evidence of a simi‐\nlarly situated, non‐black student who received better treat‐\nment than she received. See Brewer v. Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of\nIll., 479 F.3d 908, 921 (7th Cir. 2007) (requiring a plaintiff to\nshow she experienced “worse treatment than that of similarly\nsituated students not in the protected class”). The closest pos‐\nsible comparator is Student #2, a black female who failed to\ncomplete RP and STI on her first tries. But she, unlike Wanko,\nmanaged to remediate RP, so she is not similarly situated to\nWanko. See Patterson v. Avery Dennison Corp., 281 F.3d 676, 680\n(7th Cir. 2002) (explaining a comparator must be “directly\ncomparable to [the plaintiff] in all material respects”).\n Because the record weighs significantly against her,\nWanko insists parts of it are not accurate. She argues the dis‐\ntrict court erred when it (1) overruled her objection to the\nmagistrate judge’s decision denying her motion to compel\ndiscovery of the actual student records and (2) denied her mo‐\ntion to postpone summary judgment.\n “Managing the discovery process is the district court’s\nbusiness … .” Brill v. Lante Corp., 119 F.3d 1266, 1275 (7th Cir.\n1997). “The district court is in the best position to decide the\nproper scope of discovery and to settle any discovery dis‐\nputes.” Scott v. Chuhak & Tecson, P.C., 725 F.3d 772, 785 (7th\n\f6 No. 18‐2767\n\nCir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Gile v.\nUnited Airlines, Inc., 95 F.3d 492, 495 (7th Cir. 1996)). Accord‐\ningly, we deferentially review discovery decisions for abuse\nof discretion. Vallone v. CNA Fin. Corp., 375 F.3d 623, 629 (7th\nCir. 2004). This includes decisions whether to defer ruling on\nsummary judgment motions. See Helping Hand Caregivers, Ltd.\nv. Darden Restaurants, Inc., 900 F.3d 884, 890 (7th Cir. 2018).\nThere is no such abuse here.\n Concerning the denial of Wanko’s motion to compel,\nWanko wants actual student records to help her find a com‐\nparator for her Title VI claim. She says IU’s spreadsheets are\nnot acceptable because they are unreliable, pointing to the\nGPA discrepancy relating to Student #2. But the magistrate\njudge considered that argument and rejected it, and the dis‐\ntrict court accepted that rejection. Wanko has given us no rea‐\nson to conclude those decisions were beyond the bounds of\ndiscretion.\n We reach the same conclusion concerning the denial of\nWanko’s motion to postpone summary judgment. Federal\nRule of Civil Procedure 56(d) allows the district court to “de‐\nfer consider[ation]” of a motion for summary judgment “[i]f\na nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for spec‐\nified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its op‐\nposition.” Essentially, the rule requires the party facing sum‐\nmary judgment to “make a good faith showing that it cannot\nrespond” to the motion for summary judgment. See United\nStates v. All Assets & Equipment of West Side Bldg. Corp., 58 F.3d\n1181, 1190 (7th Cir. 1995) (referring to the deferral provision’s\nformer location at subsection (f)).\n Wanko argues she could not respond to the motion for\nsummary judgment without the actual student records.\n\fNo. 18‐2767 7\n\nWanko certainly has a need for information about her fellow\nclassmates (races, grades, etc.), and without such information\ncould not meaningfully respond to a motion for summary\njudgment. The problem for Wanko is she already has this in‐\nformation in the spreadsheets IU provided. Having rejected\nWanko’s argument concerning the veracity of those spread‐\nsheets, the district court reasonably concluded Wanko had no\nneed for the actual student records. Thus, Wanko did not pro‐\nvide “a good faith reason” for her failure to respond to IU’s\nmotion. It was not an abuse of discretion for the court to deny\nWanko’s Rule 56(d) motion and rule on IU’s motion for sum‐\nmary judgment.2\n III.\n As the district court did not abuse its discretion in resolv‐\ning these discovery disputes, we AFFIRM.\n\n\n\n\n 2 In her brief, Wanko couches her arguments in terms of due process,\ni.e., without the student records she was not given “the opportunity to be\nheard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” See Mathews v.\nEldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976) (internal quotation marks omitted)\n(quoting Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965)). There was no due\nprocess violation here. The magistrate judge and the district court al‐\nlowed Wanko to argue her discovery issues. Just because they ruled\nagainst her on discovery matters does not mean they deprived her of due\nprocess.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Catherine Wanko v. Board of Trustees of Indiana U\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-06-17\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18‐2767\\nCATHERINE WANKO,\\n Plaintiff‐Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nBOARD OF TRUSTEES OF INDIANA\\nUNIVERSITY,\\n Defendant‐Appellee.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.\\n No. 16‐cv‐02789 — Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED MARCH 28, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 17, 2019\\n ____________________\\n Before RIPPLE, MANION, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.\\n MANION, Circuit Judge. Catherine Wanko brought this\\nsuit under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d,\\nalleging Indiana University (IU) discriminated against her by\\nhaving her retake her entire first‐year curriculum at IU’s\\nSchool of Dentistry. In discovery, IU produced spreadsheets\\ncontaining the demographics and grades of the students in\\nWanko’s class. Those spreadsheets showed no student, let\\nalone one outside of a protected class, was similarly situated\\n\\f2 No. 18‐2767\\n\\nto Wanko. Wanko moved to compel the production of the ac‐\\ntual student records, but that motion was denied. As Wanko\\nwas unable to show a sufficient comparator for her discrimi‐\\nnation claim, the district court granted summary judgment to\\nIU. We affirm.\\n I.\\n Wanko is a naturalized United States citizen from Came‐\\nroon. She began her dental studies at IU in Fall 2014. During\\nthe 2014–2015 school year, Wanko failed to complete success‐\\nfully two courses: Removable Prosthodontics (RP) and Single\\nTooth Indirect Restorations (STI). Based on her grades in\\nthose classes, IU allowed Wanko the opportunity to remedi‐\\nate RP in Summer 2015 and retake STI in Spring 2016.\\n A total of eight students, including Wanko, attempted to\\nremediate RP. To pass the remediation course, a student had\\nto score at least 80% on the exam. Wanko scored 71%. On June\\n22, 2015, IU notified Wanko she would have to repeat the\\nwhole first‐year curriculum. She was the only student in her\\nclass to be held back. After Wanko failed to complete her sec‐\\nond attempt at STI in Spring 2016, IU dismissed her.\\n Not long thereafter, Wanko, through counsel, reached out\\nto IU. In response, IU’s general counsel emailed Wanko’s\\ncounsel stating one other student, identified as “Student #2,”\\nalso failed STI in Spring 2015. IU’s counsel explained IU al‐\\nlowed Student #2 to proceed into the second‐year curriculum\\n“because she failed only one class and had a cumulative GPA\\nabove 2.0.” The email showed Student #2 had a Spring 2015\\nGPA of 2.131. Wanko’s GPA was 1.965.\\n Wanko brought suit in October 2016. She claimed IU dis‐\\ncriminated against her on the basis of race when it failed to\\n\\fNo. 18‐2767 3\\n\\npromote her to the second‐year curriculum.1 In her complaint,\\nWanko alleged two or three similarly situated, non‐black stu‐\\ndents were promoted when she was not. That charge was\\nbased on a conversation Wanko had with the professor who\\ntaught STI in 2015. He told her two or three students failed his\\ncourse and would retake it the next year. He did not reveal\\nany demographics about those students.\\n In discovery, Wanko sought information about the de‐\\nmographics and grades of her former classmates. In response,\\nIU produced spreadsheets showing the GPA, grades, race,\\nand gender of each student in Wanko’s class. IU did not pro‐\\nvide the students’ names, but it assigned every student a\\nnumber as an identifier. IU says it chose this method of pro‐\\nduction out of concern for its responsibilities under the Fam‐\\nily Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA),\\nwhich set up safeguards concerning the release of student in‐\\nformation. See 20 U.S.C. § 1232g. IU’s spreadsheets showed\\nonly two students had failed both RP and STI in the 2014–2015\\nschool year: Wanko and another black female, the “Student\\n#2” from the general counsel’s email (IU identifies her as “Stu‐\\ndent #57 in the spreadsheets, but we will continue to refer to\\nher as “Student #2”). Unlike Wanko, however, Student #2 suc‐\\ncessfully remediated RP and was allowed to proceed to the\\nsecond‐year curriculum despite her failing grade in STI.\\n Wanko was not satisfied with IU’s spreadsheets. She\\nmoved to compel production of the actual student records,\\nclaiming she needed them to know which white students in\\n\\n\\n 1Wanko also claimed racial discrimination motivated her dismissal\\nfrom IU in 2016. The district court dismissed that claim on IU’s motion.\\nWanko does not appeal that ruling.\\n\\f4 No. 18‐2767\\n\\nher class failed STI. She argued the spreadsheets are unrelia‐\\nble because the GPA for Student #2 is different than the GPA\\nthe general counsel had reported earlier. The general counsel\\nhad provided a GPA of 2.131, whereas the spreadsheets re‐\\nported a GPA of 2.568. Responding to Wanko’s motion, IU\\nexplained the discrepancy was because the general counsel\\nprovided Student #2’s Spring 2015 GPA, but the spreadsheets\\nprovided Student #2’s cumulative GPA.\\n A magistrate judge orally denied Wanko’s motion during\\na telephonic discovery conference. Because IU had provided\\nWanko with the demographic and grade information in the\\nspreadsheets, the judge concluded Wanko had not shown she\\nneeded the actual student records. The judge also concluded\\nWanko had not shown the spreadsheets lacked veracity. After\\nthat oral denial, Wanko filed a written motion making the\\nsame arguments, which the magistrate judge also denied.\\n Wanko objected to the district court. While that objection\\nwas pending, IU moved for summary judgment. Wanko, ra‐\\nther than responding to the motion, moved to postpone rul‐\\ning on summary judgment because of the student‐records is‐\\nsue.\\n The district court resolved all three motions in one order.\\nFirst, it overruled Wanko’s objection to the magistrate judge’s\\ndecisions, holding the magistrate judge reasonably concluded\\nthe information in the spreadsheets was sufficient. Second, it\\ndenied Wanko’s motion to postpone ruling on summary\\njudgment, finding Wanko had not shown a good faith reason\\nwhy she could not respond to IU’s motion for summary judg‐\\nment. Third, the district court granted IU’s motion for sum‐\\nmary judgment, concluding Wanko could not succeed on her\\n\\fNo. 18‐2767 5\\n\\ndiscrimination claim because she could not identify a simi‐\\nlarly situated, non‐black student who received better treat‐\\nment.\\n II.\\n In this appeal, for good reason Wanko does not contest the\\nmerits of the district court’s ruling on summary judgment. A\\ncareful review of the record before us compels the entry of\\nsummary judgment for IU. Wanko has no evidence of a simi‐\\nlarly situated, non‐black student who received better treat‐\\nment than she received. See Brewer v. Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of\\nIll., 479 F.3d 908, 921 (7th Cir. 2007) (requiring a plaintiff to\\nshow she experienced “worse treatment than that of similarly\\nsituated students not in the protected class”). The closest pos‐\\nsible comparator is Student #2, a black female who failed to\\ncomplete RP and STI on her first tries. But she, unlike Wanko,\\nmanaged to remediate RP, so she is not similarly situated to\\nWanko. See Patterson v. Avery Dennison Corp., 281 F.3d 676, 680\\n(7th Cir. 2002) (explaining a comparator must be “directly\\ncomparable to [the plaintiff] in all material respects”).\\n Because the record weighs significantly against her,\\nWanko insists parts of it are not accurate. She argues the dis‐\\ntrict court erred when it (1) overruled her objection to the\\nmagistrate judge’s decision denying her motion to compel\\ndiscovery of the actual student records and (2) denied her mo‐\\ntion to postpone summary judgment.\\n “Managing the discovery process is the district court’s\\nbusiness … .” Brill v. Lante Corp., 119 F.3d 1266, 1275 (7th Cir.\\n1997). “The district court is in the best position to decide the\\nproper scope of discovery and to settle any discovery dis‐\\nputes.” Scott v. Chuhak & Tecson, P.C., 725 F.3d 772, 785 (7th\\n\\f6 No. 18‐2767\\n\\nCir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Gile v.\\nUnited Airlines, Inc., 95 F.3d 492, 495 (7th Cir. 1996)). Accord‐\\ningly, we deferentially review discovery decisions for abuse\\nof discretion. Vallone v. CNA Fin. Corp., 375 F.3d 623, 629 (7th\\nCir. 2004). This includes decisions whether to defer ruling on\\nsummary judgment motions. See Helping Hand Caregivers, Ltd.\\nv. Darden Restaurants, Inc., 900 F.3d 884, 890 (7th Cir. 2018).\\nThere is no such abuse here.\\n Concerning the denial of Wanko’s motion to compel,\\nWanko wants actual student records to help her find a com‐\\nparator for her Title VI claim. She says IU’s spreadsheets are\\nnot acceptable because they are unreliable, pointing to the\\nGPA discrepancy relating to Student #2. But the magistrate\\njudge considered that argument and rejected it, and the dis‐\\ntrict court accepted that rejection. Wanko has given us no rea‐\\nson to conclude those decisions were beyond the bounds of\\ndiscretion.\\n We reach the same conclusion concerning the denial of\\nWanko’s motion to postpone summary judgment. Federal\\nRule of Civil Procedure 56(d) allows the district court to “de‐\\nfer consider[ation]” of a motion for summary judgment “[i]f\\na nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for spec‐\\nified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its op‐\\nposition.” Essentially, the rule requires the party facing sum‐\\nmary judgment to “make a good faith showing that it cannot\\nrespond” to the motion for summary judgment. See United\\nStates v. All Assets & Equipment of West Side Bldg. Corp., 58 F.3d\\n1181, 1190 (7th Cir. 1995) (referring to the deferral provision’s\\nformer location at subsection (f)).\\n Wanko argues she could not respond to the motion for\\nsummary judgment without the actual student records.\\n\\fNo. 18‐2767 7\\n\\nWanko certainly has a need for information about her fellow\\nclassmates (races, grades, etc.), and without such information\\ncould not meaningfully respond to a motion for summary\\njudgment. The problem for Wanko is she already has this in‐\\nformation in the spreadsheets IU provided. Having rejected\\nWanko’s argument concerning the veracity of those spread‐\\nsheets, the district court reasonably concluded Wanko had no\\nneed for the actual student records. Thus, Wanko did not pro‐\\nvide “a good faith reason” for her failure to respond to IU’s\\nmotion. It was not an abuse of discretion for the court to deny\\nWanko’s Rule 56(d) motion and rule on IU’s motion for sum‐\\nmary judgment.2\\n III.\\n As the district court did not abuse its discretion in resolv‐\\ning these discovery disputes, we AFFIRM.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 2 In her brief, Wanko couches her arguments in terms of due process,\\ni.e., without the student records she was not given “the opportunity to be\\nheard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” See Mathews v.\\nEldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976) (internal quotation marks omitted)\\n(quoting Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965)). There was no due\\nprocess violation here. The magistrate judge and the district court al‐\\nlowed Wanko to argue her discovery issues. Just because they ruled\\nagainst her on discovery matters does not mean they deprived her of due\\nprocess.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2595,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4630644,"string":"4,630,644"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"Jeremiah FELTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Bryan BARTOW, Respondent-Appellee."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Jeremiah Felton v. Byran Bartow"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-06-18"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-1954"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Ripple, Manion, Brennan\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Daniel Anthony Manion\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18‐1954\\nJEREMIAH FELTON,\\n Petitioner‐Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nBRYAN BARTOW,\\n Respondent‐Appellee.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Eastern District of Wisconsin.\\n No. 14‐cv‐965 — Nancy Joseph, Magistrate Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED FEBRUARY 22, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 18, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before RIPPLE, MANION, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\\n MANION, Circuit Judge. A jury convicted Jeremiah Felton of\\nfirst degree intentional homicide in Wisconsin state court for\\nthe death of his three‐month‐old son, Jeremiah Felton Jr. (J.J.).\\nThe jury heard testimony about the days leading up to J.J.’s\\ndeath, such as those who cared for and had contact with him,\\nincluding Felton. The jury also heard about Felton’s conver‐\\nsations with police, whom he told that J.J. had slipped and hit\\nhis head in the bathtub, and with fellow jail inmate, Douglas\\n\\f2 No. 18‐1954\\n\\nHouse, who testified that Felton said he had swung J.J. into a\\nbathroom door. J.J.’s treating physicians and the medical ex‐\\naminer also testified about J.J.’s injuries and cause of death,\\nwhich two of the physicians stated, in part, was due to shak‐\\ning. The medical examiner concluded that blunt force trauma\\nwas the cause of death. The jury found Felton guilty.\\n Felton sought post‐conviction relief in the Wisconsin state\\ncourt based on ineffective assistance of counsel. In particular,\\nFelton cited his attorney’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s\\nstatement during closing argument that House could not re‐\\nceive a sentence modification for his testimony in Felton’s trial\\nand failure to secure medical expert testimony to rebut the\\nState’s witnesses. At the post‐conviction hearing, Felton’s\\ncounsel testified as well as three medical experts who con‐\\ncluded J.J. had not been shaken and J.J.’s injuries were con‐\\nsistent with a fall of two to four feet. The state trial court de‐\\nnied Felton’s petition, and the Wisconsin Court of Appeals af‐\\nfirmed the denial. The Wisconsin Supreme Court summarily\\ndenied Felton’s petition for review. Felton sought a writ of ha‐\\nbeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the district court. The\\ndistrict court denied Felton’s petition, and Felton now appeals\\nto this court. Because the decision of the Wisconsin Court of\\nAppeals was not unreasonable, Felton’s petition is denied.\\n I.\\nA. Criminal Trial1\\n J.J. Felton was born on February 16, 2008. During his short\\nlife, J.J. lived with his mother, Sasha Fulton, and his father,\\n\\n\\n 1Unless otherwise noted, the facts are drawn from the testimony and\\nother evidence at Felton’s criminal jury trial.\\n\\fNo. 18‐1954 3\\n\\nJeremiah Felton, would sometimes stay with them. Sasha and\\nFelton were not married. They had renewed their relationship\\nin June 2008, and Felton moved with Sasha and J.J. to a new\\napartment the weekend before J.J. died. On Sunday, June 1,\\n2008, J.J. spent the day at the park with various family mem‐\\nbers, including his parents. Sasha took J.J. home around sup‐\\npertime while Felton stayed out until after midnight. That\\nnight, Felton stayed with Sasha and J.J. at the new apartment.\\nSasha’s cousin, Bryiana Fulton, and her baby also stayed there\\nthat night.\\n 1. The Day at the Apartment\\n The next morning, while Felton slept, Sasha fed and\\nplayed with J.J. before going to work shortly before 9 a.m. Bry‐\\niana sometimes cared for J.J., but that day, Sasha told her to\\nleave him with Felton. It was the first time Sasha left J.J. in\\nFelton’s care for the day while she was at work.\\n While Felton was home with J.J., different family members\\ncame in and out of the apartment throughout the day. Bryiana\\nleft the apartment sometime after 9 a.m. When she returned\\naround noon, Felton and J.J. were there along with Byrian Ful‐\\nton (Bryiana’s brother) and Casey Fulton (Sasha’s brother).\\nJ.J. seemed to be acting normally at that time. Bryiana gave\\nhim a bottle before leaving around 12:30 p.m. Casey and Byr‐\\nian left at the same time, and Felton remained in the apart‐\\nment with J.J. Sasha called Felton from work about 2:30 or\\n3 p.m., and he told her that J.J. had been sleeping all day.\\n Sasha’s fifteen‐year‐old cousin, Anthony Hendrix, came\\nby the apartment sometime after his school let out for the day\\nat 2:30 p.m. There he found Felton alone in the apartment with\\nJ.J., who was sleeping on the couch while Felton was getting\\n\\f4 No. 18‐1954\\n\\nout of the shower. Hendrix testified that J.J. cried multiple\\ntimes while he was there, and that both he and Felton picked\\nhim up. Hendrix put J.J. down in his crib and patted his back.\\nJ.J. stopped crying, and Hendrix left soon after.\\n When Sasha returned home from work around 5:25 p.m.,\\nshe checked on J.J., who was sleeping. She let him sleep; J.J.\\nwas a fussy baby, and Sasha did not want to disturb him. Bry‐\\niana came back around the same time. Felton asked Sasha to\\ndrive him to his friend’s graduation. After eating a sandwich,\\nSasha borrowed Bryiana’s car to drive Felton to the gradua‐\\ntion ceremony and returned about a half hour to forty\\nminutes later. While Sasha and Felton were gone, Bryiana\\nstayed at Sasha’s apartment with her son and J.J. When Sasha\\nreturned, she did not check on J.J. right away, but let him sleep\\nand began cleaning the kitchen and bathroom. About fifteen\\nminutes later, she heard J.J. make a funny noise and went to\\ncheck on him. There she found J.J. with one eye open and one\\neye shut. Sasha cried out that something was wrong. Bryiana\\nthought that Sasha was overreacting until she saw J.J. She then\\ntold Sasha to call 911 while she attempted to revive J.J.\\n 2. At the Hospital\\n J.J. was taken by ambulance to St. Vincent Hospital in\\nGreen Bay around 7:30 p.m. Dr. John Taylor, pediatric critical\\ncare physician, first saw J.J. shortly after he arrived at the hos‐\\npital. Dr. Taylor intubated J.J. and ordered x‐rays and a CT\\nscan. The CT scan revealed J.J. had a skull fracture just above\\nand slightly behind his right ear, specifically his right parietal\\nbone, bleeding under his skull and in his brain, and retinal\\nhemorrhages. Dr. Taylor told Sasha and Felton he was con‐\\ncerned someone had hurt J.J. because there was no record of\\na car accident or someone falling or tripping down the stairs\\n\\fNo. 18‐1954 5\\n\\nwith their son, and J.J. was not yet rolling or moving by him‐\\nself. Sasha told Dr. Taylor that the day before while she had\\nbeen carrying J.J. in her left arm, J.J. bumped his head as she\\nwalked through the door. Felton did not give any explanation\\nto Dr. Taylor.\\n A number of family members came to the hospital that\\nnight. Some of them played in the halls, including Felton, who\\npushed Casey around in a wheelchair. Hospital staff asked\\nthem to leave because they were too noisy and disruptive. Fel‐\\nton and Sasha were allowed to stay, and they fell asleep in the\\nfamily waiting room.\\n That same night, the hospital or Brown County Human\\nServices contacted the police about J.J.’s serious injuries and\\nthe lack of explanation for them. Detective Robert Haglund\\nand Detective Walter Wickman of the Green Bay Police De‐\\npartment arrived at the hospital around 3 a.m. on Tuesday,\\nJune 3. Haglund woke Felton and Sasha. He interviewed\\nSasha with a human services representative present, and\\nWickman interviewed Felton in a separate room. There Felton\\ntold Wickman that he did not know what could have hap‐\\npened because J.J. was with him or people they knew. He told\\nWickman about Sasha bumping J.J.’s head into the door, but\\nprovided no other explanation about how J.J. might have sus‐\\ntained his injuries. After interviewing Sasha, Haglund joined\\nWickman and Felton and asked Felton what had happened.\\nAfter confirming Felton told him the same thing he had just\\ntold Wickman, Haglund and Wickman left the hospital.\\n Haglund returned to the hospital the next day and spoke\\nwith various family members, including Bryiana and Hen‐\\ndrix, asking them what might have happened to J.J. He\\nlearned about the move to the new apartment on Friday and\\n\\f6 No. 18‐1954\\n\\nSaturday and the day at the park on Sunday. At the end of his\\ninterviews, Haglund asked the family, including Felton,\\nSasha, and Bryiana, to be quiet because they were being noisy\\nplaying up and down the halls. Haglund also told them he\\nbelieved one of the family members was responsible for J.J.’s\\ninjuries and his prime suspects were Felton, Bryiana, and\\nSasha because they had been alone with J.J. on Monday. Hag‐\\nlund also advised Felton to check in with his probation officer\\nas he was required to do if he spoke with law enforcement.\\n While at the hospital, Felton stated more than once, “I just\\ndon’t want to go to jail.” In one instance, Bryiana testified Fel‐\\nton expressed frustration over what he thought was a lack of\\ninformation from doctors, and he did not want to hit the doc‐\\ntor and go to jail.\\n 3. J.J.’s Death and Felton’s Conversation with Police and\\n Fellow Inmate\\n J.J.’s condition worsened, and he died from his injuries on\\nJune 5th. Shortly after his son’s death, Felton went to the\\nBrown County Jail on a probation hold. On June 9, 2008, Fel‐\\nton asked to talk with police and spoke with Haglund. Felton\\ngave Haglund a statement, which Haglund typed and Felton\\nread and signed. In that statement, Felton recounted that\\naround 2 p.m. on the day J.J. was rushed to the hospital, “I got\\nin the bathtub with my baby and started giving him a bath.\\nThere was only two inches of water. He was sitting between\\nmy legs and his butt slipped forward and his head came back‐\\nwards and his head hit the bottom of the tub between my legs.\\nHis right ear went in the water, but his face didn’t go under\\nthe water. He started crying. I wiped him off, got him dressed,\\nand gave him a bottle, patted him to sleep while he was lying\\non the couch.” Felton told Haglund he felt it in his legs when\\n\\fNo. 18‐1954 7\\n\\nJ.J. hit the bottom of the tub and J.J. hit the tub “kind of hard.”\\nFelton said he was going to tell Haglund about this in the hos‐\\npital, but Haglund made him nervous.\\n Haglund spoke again with Felton on June 12th telling him\\nthe doctors said that the slip in the tub could not have caused\\nJ.J.’s injuries. When Haglund left the interview room, Felton\\nstood by the door trying to listen to what was being said out‐\\nside the room, which Haglund stated witnesses typically do\\nnot do. After speaking with Felton on June 12th, Haglund sent\\nthe case file over to the District Attorney’s Office recommend‐\\ning Felton be charged with first degree intentional homicide\\nfor J.J.’s death. On June 13, 2008, the Green Bay Police Depart‐\\nment issued a press release about its request and stated J.J.\\nhad suffered a skull fracture from blunt force trauma. The\\npress release did not say where the fracture was located on\\nthe skull.\\n Meanwhile, Douglas House, one of Felton’s fellow in‐\\nmates at the Brown County Jail, sent police a request form,\\notherwise known as a “kite,” dated June 13, 2008. House had\\nnine to ten prior convictions and had a reputation as both a\\njailhouse lawyer and a snitch. House’s kite stated, “I have con‐\\nclusive evidence to convict Jeremiah Felton, Sr. in the death of\\nhis infant son, Junior. That was caused by right side trauma\\nto head behind right ear. Will only come out if called out as\\nan attorney visit.”\\n Haglund spoke with House on June 16th. (It was the not\\nthe first time Haglund and House spoke with one another;\\nthey had previously talked about other cases.) House told\\nHaglund that when Felton approached him, Felton had not\\nyet been charged with J.J.’s death, and they discussed the time\\nconstraints for Felton’s probation hold. After that, Felton told\\n\\f8 No. 18‐1954\\n\\nhim about J.J. House told Haglund that Felton had told him\\nthat J.J. was getting on his nerves, so he swung J.J. into the\\nbathroom door hitting the right side of J.J.’s head behind his\\near. House also asked Haglund to look into whether the police\\nwere harassing his children.\\n House spoke again with Haglund on June 23rd. Haglund\\ntold House that the police were watching another house near\\nhis children. House, in turn, told Haglund that Felton told\\nhim that the police questioned him about J.J. and he planned\\nto blame it on his girlfriend’s sister. In addition to telling Hag‐\\nlund about Felton, House asked Haglund if he could look into\\npolice harassing his son and daughter. Haglund checked into\\nthis and later told House that the police were not watching his\\nkids, but were watching a nearby house.\\n 4. Other Criminal Trial Testimony\\n Felton was charged with first degree intentional homicide\\nin J.J.’s death, and the case proceeded to trial. Several wit‐\\nnesses, including Sasha and Felton’s mother, testified that J.J.\\nwas a fussy baby. On one occasion, Bryiana “popped” J.J. and\\nher son on their diapers when they were “both a little crabby.”\\nSasha testified that she did not like that Bryiana spanked J.J.,\\nbut she was very close with her cousin and trusted her to care\\nfor J.J. As for Felton, Sasha and others testified that he was\\ngood with his children and nieces and nephews, and they also\\ntestified that if J.J. got fussy, Felton would pass J.J. to someone\\nelse or put him in his car seat until he stopped crying.\\n House testified at trial:\\n A. Well, he [Felton] said that he had been home, I be‐\\n lieve he said he was home with his girlfriend’s sister,\\n or wife’s sister, one or the other, and that he was giving\\n\\fNo. 18‐1954 9\\n\\n the baby a bath, and the baby slipped. That the baby\\n had either gotten water in his eyes or mouth and\\n started crying, and he tried for a long period of time to\\n quiet the baby down, but that didn’t happen.\\n Q. What else did he continue to tell you what hap‐\\n pened?\\n A. He had gotten frustrated and was holding the baby,\\n and then swung the baby into the bathroom door. The\\n baby, Jeremiah, hit his head on the right side, and he\\n pointed to the left ‐ ‐ or the right side behind his ear of\\n where the baby hit his head.\\n Q. I was going to ask, how do you know it was the right\\n side?\\n A. Well, as he was telling me, he made the motion, and\\n he said he was holding the baby, swung the baby, and\\n the baby hit his head, and I said where, and he said\\n right here, and he pointed right behind his head.\\n …\\n Q. Did he say anything else to you after ‐ ‐\\n A. He did. You know, he made it sound like he was\\n going to put the blame on the ‐ ‐ the girlfriend’s sister,\\n and he said he ‐ ‐ he also said you know, for a substan‐\\n tial amount of time that baby shut up so he knew some‐\\n thing was wrong.\\n House found Felton’s demeanor odd because “it was like\\nthere was no concern whatsoever for the baby.” House also\\ntold the jury about Felton’s confession and identified Felton\\nin the courtroom. He testified that after Felton was charged,\\n\\f10 No. 18‐1954\\n\\nFelton approached House about the kite and asked why\\nHouse snitched on him.\\n On cross‐examination, House denied ever talking with his\\nattorney about getting anything in return for information he\\nhad about Felton. Felton’s counsel impeached House by play‐\\ning two recorded telephone conversations that House had\\nwhile in the Brown County Jail. The first call was between\\nHouse and his attorney. During that call, House’s attorney\\ntold him she had spoken with Haglund who said he was un‐\\nsure he could do anything for House unless House testified in\\nFelton’s case. House’s attorney also discussed information\\nHouse had about another homicide. The second call was be‐\\ntween House and one of his daughters. House’s daughter told\\nhim that Haglund had said House needed to testify “against\\n[sic] for the baby or something.” On redirect, House testified\\nhis case was over and he did not receive any consideration in\\nhis case for his testimony in Felton’s trial.\\n Felton called his Brown County Jail cellmate, Ishtayopi\\nJones, to testify. Jones came to the jail on June 14th. He was\\nfamiliar with House because they had met previously, though\\nhe tried to stay away from House because his family warned\\nhim that House was a “con artist.” Jones stated House ex‐\\npressed concern to him when he learned that Jones was room‐\\ning with Felton, though House did not tell Jones why. Jones\\nsaid he learned about Felton’s case from the television. Jones\\nstated he did talk with Felton about House and what a “big\\ntroublemaker” and “scam artist” he was.\\n On cross‐examination, the prosecutor asked Jones about a\\nkite he signed and dated October 8, 2008. The kite stated, in\\npart, “I did not and will not try and tell on Jeremiah Felton.”\\nWhen asked at trial, “What’s there to tell on Jeremiah Felton,”\\n\\fNo. 18‐1954 11\\n\\nJones responded, “Nothing, I guess.” The prosecutor further\\nquestioned Jones about the kite, and Jones’s testimony made\\nit clear that he knew nothing about Felton’s case from Felton\\nor House and that Felton, not Jones, wrote the kite. When\\nasked why he signed the request form, Jones responded,\\n“‘Cause [Felton] looked pretty mad at me, then I just told him\\nI’d sign it and that if he needs me to testify, I’ll do that for\\nhim.” Jones also testified he told Haglund that Felton had\\nnever talked with Felton about his case and that House “is just\\nlying and making stuff up to get himself out of what situation\\nhe’s in right now.”\\n 5. Medical Testimony\\n Also at trial, the State called three physicians, two of J.J.’s\\ntreating physicians and the medical examiner, to present tes‐\\ntimony about J.J.’s injuries and cause of death. Dr. John Tay‐\\nlor, who first treated J.J. upon his arrival at the hospital, testi‐\\nfied that both J.J.’s fracture and retinal hemorrhaging were the\\nresult of a significant amount of force, such as a car accident.\\nIn J.J.’s case, Dr. Taylor suspected “most likely that this was a\\nresult of significant shaking.” Dr. Taylor stated that a bump\\nlike Sasha bumping J.J.’s head in the doorway would not ac‐\\ncount for J.J.’s injuries because the bump was on J.J.’s left side,\\nthe force would have been insufficient, and J.J. was eating,\\nsleeping, awakening, and playing in an age‐appropriate way\\nafter that. He also testified that it is difficult to establish a time\\nframe for when the injuries were sustained. According to\\nDr. Taylor, it could be at the longest a day, but he believed it\\nwas within an hour or two of the injuries presenting them‐\\nselves.\\n A couple hypotheticals were posed to Dr. Taylor while he\\nwas testifying. The prosecutor asked him about a child J.J.’s\\n\\f12 No. 18‐1954\\n\\nsize slipping in the bathtub between someone else’s legs and\\nhitting his head. Dr. Taylor responded that the distance of the\\nfall would not have caused the skull fracture, hemorrhages,\\nand bruising in the back of the eye. He stated that J.J.’s injuries\\nwere more consistent with his head being swung into a door\\nthan falling in a bathtub. Felton’s counsel asked whether, hy‐\\npothetically, those injuries could have resulted from someone\\nfalling with J.J. at the playground. Dr. Taylor responded that\\nit was “[e]xtraordinarily unlikely, but … there was a\\nminiscule possibility.”\\n Another of J.J.’s treating physicians, Dr. Ralph Vardis, also\\ntestified. He concluded that J.J.’s injuries were consistent with\\nbeing violently shaken and slammed into a hard surface. On\\ncross‐examination, Dr. Vardis stated that the injuries could\\nhave been caused by a fifteen‐year‐old so long as it was vio‐\\nlent and intentional. Dr. Vardis testified about the progression\\nof J.J.’s symptoms, namely the brain swelling, and concluded\\nthat J.J. was so severely shaken that his brain completely died.\\nHe said J.J.’s brain bleeding and skull fracture were not likely\\ncaused by a short fall, but rather “[t]he only way you can get\\nthe kind of findings that we saw is if the height was one to\\ntwo stories from the top of a building.” According to Dr. Var‐\\ndis, some of J.J.’s bleeding was due to the skull fracture and\\nsome of the bleeding was due to the shaking. He acknowl‐\\nedged on cross‐examination that there was a disagreement\\nbetween his opinion regarding J.J.’s cause of death, i.e. shaken\\nbaby syndrome, and the medical examiner’s conclusion in the\\nautopsy report, i.e. head injuries due to blunt force trauma.\\nAs for timing, Dr. Vardis noted that there is no way to tell\\nwhen the injuries occurred. He stated that the injury could not\\nhave happened on Sunday, but it could have happened be‐\\ntween five minutes to twelve hours from when the symptoms\\n\\fNo. 18‐1954 13\\n\\nwere evident. He also expected the same physical findings if\\nit had taken place at 1 p.m. or 5 p.m. the day J.J. came to the\\nhospital.\\n The third doctor to testify at trial was Dr. Mark Witeck. Dr.\\nWiteck, a forensic pathologist, served as the medical examiner\\nfor Brown County. He performed the autopsy on J.J. Based on\\nhis examination, Dr. Witeck concluded that J.J. died of “cra‐\\nnial cerebral trauma, in other words, head injuries due to\\nblunt force trauma.” Dr. Witeck testified that J.J. was just un‐\\nder 15 pounds and was 24.5 inches long, had no external inju‐\\nries, including bruises, and his anterior fontanel, commonly\\nreferred to as the soft spot in the front of the head, was bulg‐\\ning outward. This was consistent with brain swelling, and the\\nseverity and global nature of the swelling was consistent with\\na head injury. J.J. had fractures on the right side and front base\\nof his skull in “what’s called the orbital plate, that’s the little\\nbone plate that’s just above the eye.” There was also a blood\\nclot and bleeding on the surface of the right side of the brain.\\nDr. Witeck stated “that requires a lot of trauma to the head to\\nget that kind of bleeding.” Dr. Witeck testified J.J.’s brain\\nbleeding was consistent with the fracture. While he stated eye\\nhemorrhages are often seen in children who are shaken, he\\ndid not opine whether J.J. had been shaken.\\n According to Dr. Witeck, the fracture was consistent with\\nhaving been caused by blunt force trauma. This means J.J.’s\\nhead was hit with something or against something, though\\nthere was no way to know whether it was a single blow or\\nmultiple blows. He also said J.J.’s injuries were consistent\\nwith being swung into an object with significant force.\\nDr. Witeck testified J.J.’s fractures were not consistent with a\\nbaby standing and falling to the floor, but were consistent\\n\\f14 No. 18‐1954\\n\\nwith a fall only from a large height, like off of a one‐ or two‐\\nstory building. When asked whether a child of 24.5 inches tall\\nsitting in a bathtub, slipping, and hitting his head on the bath‐\\ntub could cause the injuries that he saw, Dr. Witeck re‐\\nsponded, “Not at all.” On cross‐examination, Dr. Witeck tes‐\\ntified a premature birth could play a part in a child’s suscep‐\\ntibility to fracture.\\n Felton did not call any medical experts to testify on his be‐\\nhalf. (As discussed below, his attorney consulted with her\\nphysician husband and a medical student, but did not call ei‐\\nther as witnesses at trial.) Other than the testimony elicited\\nfrom the State’s medical experts on cross‐examination, Felton\\ndid not present any medical evidence at trial.\\n 6. Jury Instructions, Closing Arguments, and Verdict\\n After the close of evidence, the trial judge instructed the\\njury. In part, the judge instructed, “Consider only the evi‐\\ndence received during this trial as given to you by these in‐\\nstructions, and from these alone, guided by your soundest\\nreason and best judgment, reach your verdict.” The judge also\\ninstructed, “Remarks of the attorneys are not evidence. If the\\nremarks suggested certain facts not in evidence, disregard the\\nsuggestion. In a few moments, you will hear the closing argu‐\\nments of the attorneys. Consider carefully the closing argu‐\\nments of the attorneys, but their arguments and conclusions\\nand opinions are not evidence. Draw your own conclusions\\nfrom the evidence and decide upon your verdict according to\\nthe evidence and the instructions given you by the court.” Af‐\\nter instructions, the prosecutor and Felton’s counsel pre‐\\nsented their closing arguments to the jury.\\n\\fNo. 18‐1954 15\\n\\n During closing arguments, the prosecutor argued in part:\\n What House is testifying has to be the truth … what\\n did he get for testifying on October 21st or 22nd, 2009?\\n The answer is nothing. Absolutely nothing. Is there a\\n case pending against him? No. Long gone. Over. Done\\n with. There’s nothing that House was going to gain by\\n testifying. Because his case was over. It was done. Per‐\\n haps, just maybe, perhaps, he testifies because he was\\n subpoenaed by the state and maybe, even somebody,\\n even a criminal like Doug House, can do the right thing\\n once in a while.\\n In response, Felton’s counsel stated:\\n And by the way, I am going to set the record straight.\\n State said, well, his case is settled. He didn’t get any\\n concessions. Cooperation with law enforcement, that\\n matter can be reopened any time for a sentence modi‐\\n fication. So the fact that he hasn’t received any benefit\\n yet, it might be ‘cause we had to wait for this case to go\\n forward. Doesn’t mean he’s not getting it. It means he\\n hasn’t gotten it yet.\\n And the prosecutor responded in the State’s rebuttal:\\n Mr. House has absolutely nothing to gain here. He was\\n honest with you. His case is closed. He can’t receive\\n anything for his testimony at this point. … [H]e won’t\\n gain anything, no advantages from the state. Just a\\n lightening of his conscience. … And he’s received no\\n consideration for this. His case is closed. Once again,\\n it’s done.\\n Felton’s counsel did not object to this latter statement.\\n(Several months later, House received a sentence reduction\\n\\f16 No. 18‐1954\\n\\nfor his testimony at Felton’s trial, though the State remained\\nsilent on that motion.) After deliberating for about four hours,\\nthe jury found Felton guilty of first degree intentional homi‐\\ncide. Felton was sentenced to life imprisonment.\\nB. Post‐conviction Proceedings\\n Felton filed a post‐conviction motion asserting ineffective\\nassistance of counsel based on two alleged errors. First, he ar‐\\ngued that his attorney erred by not securing medical experts\\nto rebut the State’s medical testimony at trial. Second, Felton\\nargued his attorney erred by not objecting to the prosecutor’s\\nclosing argument rebuttal statement that House would re‐\\nceive no benefit from his testimony. 2\\n 1. Felton’s Counsel\\n The state trial court conducted a hearing on Felton’s mo‐\\ntion. There Felton’s trial counsel testified. Felton was first rep‐\\nresented by a public defender, and counsel began to represent\\nFelton after he and his family privately retained her. While\\nthe original agreement was that she would receive $15,000 to\\ntake the case through trial, she essentially represented Felton\\npro‐bono receiving only $750 in payments. Despite a lack of\\ncompensation, counsel continued to represent Felton because\\nshe felt strongly about his case. Financial constraints, though,\\nimpacted her decision about medical experts. Counsel testi‐\\nfied that she did not hire medical experts because of the ex‐\\npense (the two out‐of‐state experts she contacted both wanted\\na minimum $2,500 retainer, and she never sought funding\\n\\n 2Felton also invoked the state trial court’s discretionary power to\\ngrant him post‐conviction relief in the interest of justice asserting the jury\\ndid not have the opportunity to hear the medical testimony and was mis‐\\nled by the prosecutor’s closing argument statements about House.\\n\\fNo. 18‐1954 17\\n\\nthrough the state public defender’s office). Counsel also\\nstated that she did not think that “hired guns” would play\\nwell to a Green Bay jury. Instead, she researched medical lit‐\\nerature and consulted her husband, a general internist who\\nspecialized in endocrinology, and a medical student, who was\\nworking for her husband, about the case. The medical student\\nhad relationships with physicians at Milwaukee Children’s\\nHospital and presented J.J.’s file to one of the doctors there.\\nThat doctor said that the race of the family was the first thing\\nat which he would look. This raised red flags for counsel, and\\nshe did not pursue an evaluation of the case from that doctor.\\nFinally, when asked, counsel testified she was aware of State\\nv. Edmunds, 746 N.W.2d 590 (Wis. 2008), in which the Wiscon‐\\nsin Supreme Court granted a new trial to a defendant based\\non newly discovered evidence rebutting the shaken baby syn‐\\ndrome theory. Counsel stated she did not contact any of the\\nEdmunds experts.\\n Regarding House, counsel said she repeatedly argued to\\nthe jury why it should not believe House. She also noted she\\nworked hard to discredit Detective Haglund, including ques‐\\ntioning him about any concessions for House, such as check‐\\ning on the surveillance of his daughter. She also explored al‐\\nternate avenues from which House could have learned about\\nthe case, such as the Green Bay Police Department press re‐\\nlease. She stated she made the strategic decision not to object\\nto the prosecutor’s closing argument rebuttal statement about\\nHouse because she concluded it was better in the face of the\\njury not to object. Moreover, counsel noted that she “objected\\nby giving a narration of my objection, rather than saying, ob‐\\njection.” In other words, she described to the jury House\\ncould be entitled to a sentence modification even if he had not\\nreceived one yet.\\n\\f18 No. 18‐1954\\n\\n 2. Post‐Trial Medical Experts\\n Felton also called three medical experts to testify at his\\npost‐conviction hearing. These physicians were critical of the\\nState’s medical experts in two key respects: they concluded\\nJ.J.’s injuries were not from shaking and his injuries could\\nhave been the result of a short fall.\\n The first doctor to testify was Dr. Patrick Barnes, a pediat‐\\nric radiologist and neuroradiologist from Stanford University\\nSchool of Medicine. Dr. Barnes disagreed with the State’s ex‐\\nperts that J.J. had been shaken. He noted that J.J. would have\\nsuffered a neck injury if he had been shaken. Moreover,\\nDr. Barnes stated that even if J.J. had been shaken, his injuries\\nwould have resulted from some sort of impact and not shak‐\\ning alone. He also strongly disagreed with the State’s experts\\nabout J.J.’s injuries being equivalent to those of a multi‐story\\nfall. Rather, Dr. Barnes testified that J.J.’s fracture was a classic\\nexample of a fall between two and three feet, such as a child\\nfalling while being held by a standing adult. He stated,\\nthough, J.J.’s fracture and other injuries were less likely a re‐\\nsult of a short fall, estimating a five percent chance. Dr. Barnes\\nalso testified that J.J.’s skull fracture “is what we call a linear\\nskull fracture. It’s actually a very common type of traumatic\\ninjury to an infant’s skull due to accidental injury scenarios,\\nlike dropping the baby to the floor or hitting the baby’s head\\nagainst something, but it still doesn’t tell us if it was inten‐\\ntional or accidental.” Dr. Barnes stated it is uncommon for a\\nchild to die from a three or four foot fall. While a bump could\\ncause a simple skull fracture, because of J.J.’s other injuries,\\nnamely the brain swelling and bleeding, something other\\nthan a bump to the head or banging his head against the wall\\nhappened according to Dr. Barnes. Regarding the bleeding\\n\\fNo. 18‐1954 19\\n\\nbetween J.J.’s brain and skull, Dr. Barnes testified that it has\\nbeen reported to be connected with either a lack of oxygen or\\nblood flow to the baby’s brain or where there is malignant\\nbrain swelling from either accidental or non‐accidental\\ncauses. Dr. Barnes went on to testify that J.J. had lung abnor‐\\nmalities suggestive of an improper intubation that could have\\ninterfered with the oxygen to his brain.\\n The second physician, Dr. Joseph Scheller, staff child neu‐\\nrologist at Children’s National Medical Center in Washington,\\nD.C., also disagreed with the State’s experts that J.J. had been\\nshaken and noted the absence of a neck injury. He said J.J. had\\na skull fracture, and “[i]t’s physically impossible to create a\\nskull fracture without force against the outside of the head, so\\nwe are sure that something happened to the outside of this\\nchild’s head that was a force directed against it.” Like Dr.\\nBarnes, he was critical of the State’s medical experts’ testi‐\\nmony analogizing the force to that of a car accident or a multi‐\\nstory fall. He testified that a short fall of two or three feet\\nwould less commonly cause a skull fracture, and it was less\\nlikely to have a skull fracture from a short fall than from being\\nswung or slammed into a hard object. Though Dr. Scheller\\nthought that J.J.’s injuries were more in line with a fall because\\nof the absence of bruising, he later stated it was possible to\\nhave a skull fracture without any bruising. Dr. Scheller testi‐\\nfied, “I believe that the baby did develop the skull fracture,\\nthe brain swelling, and the retinal hemorrhages from a short\\nfall rather than having been maliciously slammed into some‐\\nthing” because “from witnessed short falls, that when babies\\nget a skull fracture, it is in the parietal area … and that’s where\\nbaby Felton’s skull fracture was. And we really didn’t see any\\nevidence of bruising. Again, if a baby’s being held violently\\nand being slammed, then you’re going to look for bruising or\\n\\f20 No. 18‐1954\\n\\nbone injuries somewhere else, and we really didn’t see that.”\\nHe noted a parietal fracture was a common injury in infants\\nand, in his experience, if the injury is not witnessed and there\\nis no other abnormality, the conclusion is that the injury was\\naccidental. As for when J.J. sustained his injuries, Dr. Scheller\\ntestified it could have been three to six hours, maybe twelve\\nhours, but not twenty‐four hours.\\n The final doctor to testify at the hearing was Dr. John Plun‐\\nkett, a forensic pathologist from Minnesota. Dr. Plunkett\\nstated that J.J. was pretty immobile, so “we’re not talking\\nabout him rolling or falling off of some structure. We’re talk‐\\ning about an adult either intentionally or accidentally drop‐\\nping him or throwing him. Those are your possibilities, at\\nleast from the history that I have, so you can’t draw an anal‐\\nogy and just say fall.” Put another way, Dr. Plunkett testified\\nthat J.J.’s fracture was “consistent with an aggressive, mali‐\\ncious act against the baby’s head and it’s also consistent with\\na short fall,” but there was no way to tell absolutely. Similarly,\\nthere was no way to tell just by looking at the injuries whether\\nthey were the result of an accidental or intentional cause ac‐\\ncording to Dr. Plunkett. He stated that he would expect to see\\nother injuries if a child had been swung into a wall like a base‐\\nball bat. On cross‐examination, Dr. Plunkett testified it was\\npossible, though, for a child to be propelled or struck against\\nan object with the same velocity and acceleration that would\\nresult from a three‐and‐a‐half‐foot fall.\\n The state trial court denied Felton’s post‐conviction mo‐\\ntion for relief, analyzing both the performance and prejudice\\nprongs of the ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The Wis‐\\nconsin Court of Appeals similarly denied Felton’s petition,\\n\\fNo. 18‐1954 21\\n\\nconcluding that neither counsel’s failure to object to the pros‐\\necutor’s closing argument statement nor her failure to call\\nmedical experts was prejudicial. The Wisconsin Supreme\\nCourt summarily denied Felton’ petition for review. Felton\\nfiled a petition for federal habeas relief in federal court. The\\ndistrict court denied his petition, but it issued a certificate of\\nappealability. Felton now appeals.\\n II.\\n To succeed on his claim of ineffective assistance of coun‐\\nsel, Felton must show his counsel’s performance was deficient\\nand he was prejudiced as a result. Strickland v. Washington, 466\\nU.S. 668, 687 (1984). We are not required to consider perfor‐\\nmance or prejudice in a particular order or even address “both\\ncomponents of the inquiry if [Felton] makes an insufficient\\nshowing on one.” Id. at 697.\\n We review a district court’s denial of a petition for habeas\\ncorpus de novo and findings of fact for clear error. Barrow v.\\nUchtman, 398 F.3d 597, 602 (7th Cir. 2005). The Antiterrorism\\nand Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) authorizes us to\\ngrant habeas relief only if the state court decision was “con‐\\ntrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of clearly\\nestablished Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court\\nof the United States” or “based on an unreasonable determi‐\\nnation of the facts in the light of the evidence presented in the\\nstate court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). We will consider\\n“the last reasoned opinion on the claim,” which in this case is\\nfrom the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. Woolley v. Rednour, 702\\nF.3d 411, 421 (7th Cir. 2012) (quoting Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501\\nU.S. 797, 803 (1991)). A state court’s application of federal law\\nis unreasonable if it is “more than incorrect; it must have been\\nobjectively unreasonable.” Id. at 420 (citing Wiggins v. Smith,\\n\\f22 No. 18‐1954\\n\\n539 U.S. 510, 520 (2003)); accord Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362,\\n411 (2000). “‘Unreasonable’ in [the AEDPA] context means\\nmore than just incorrect; it means something … lying well\\noutside the boundaries of permissible differences of opinion.”\\nMcGhee v. Dittmann, 794 F.3d 761, 769 (7th Cir. 2015) (quoting\\nCorcoran v. Neal, 783 F.3d 676, 683 (7th Cir. 2015)). “The bar for\\nestablishing that the state court’s application of the Strickland\\n[ineffective assistance of counsel] standard was ‘unreasona‐\\nble,’ is a high one.” Taylor v. Bradley, 448 F.3d 942, 948 (7th Cir.\\n2006). “[A]s long as we are satisfied that the Wisconsin Court\\nof Appeals took the constitutional standard seriously and pro‐\\nduce[d] an answer within the range of defensible positions,\\nwe will affirm the district court’s decision to deny the writ.”\\nId. (citation and internal quotation omitted).\\n Before turning to the merits of Felton’s claim, we must de‐\\ntermine the appropriate standard of review in this case. Felton\\nargues the Wisconsin Court of Appeals is not entitled to\\nAEDPA deference on either the performance or prejudice\\nprongs of Strickland. As for the performance prong, we agree.\\nBecause the Wisconsin Court of Appeals did not address the\\nperformance prong, we are to review counsel’s performance\\nde novo. Woolley, 702 F.3d at 422.\\n Regarding the prejudice prong, Felton argues that our re‐\\nview also should be de novo because the Wisconsin Court of\\nAppeals unreasonably applied Strickland. See Thomas v. Clem‐\\nents, 789 F.3d 760, 767 (7th Cir. 2015) (reviewing state court’s\\nprejudice prong analysis de novo where the court “only used\\ntwo sentences to address the prejudice prong and did not ac‐\\ntually analyze why there was no prejudice”). First, Felton as‐\\nserts the state appellate court unreasonably applied the Strick‐\\n\\fNo. 18‐1954 23\\n\\nland prejudice standard to the facts by not “independently un‐\\ndertaking a complete review and analysis of the trial and\\npostconviction expert testimony.” Felton, however, did not\\npresent this argument to the district court. “[A]rguments in a\\nfederal habeas petition which were not raised in the district\\ncourt are not properly raised for the first time on appeal.”\\nMertz v. Williams, 771 F.3d 1035, 1043 (7th Cir. 2014). “Regard‐\\nless of whether a habeas claim was fairly presented or de‐\\nfaulted in the state courts, if an argument was not presented\\nto the federal district court, it is forfeited in this court.” Frazier\\nv. Varga, 843 F.3d 258, 262 (7th Cir. 2016). By not presenting it\\nto the district court, Felton similarly forfeited his contention\\nthat the Wisconsin Court of Appeals unreasonably applied\\nStrickland by failing to review counsel’s errors cumulatively.\\nId.3\\n As he did argue before the district court, Felton contends\\nthat he is entitled to de novo review because the state court im‐\\nproperly used an outcome‐determinative test in applying\\nStrickland. Concluding counsel’s failure to object to the prose‐\\ncutor’s closing argument “was not prejudicial,” the Wisconsin\\nCourt of Appeals stated, “[W]e do not believe there is a rea‐\\nsonable probability that it affected the outcome of the trial.”\\nThe Wisconsin Court of Appeals’s use of the word “outcome”\\n\\n 3 The State argues Felton did not fairly present to the state court this\\nclaim of the cumulative prejudicial effects of counsel’s errors, citing Black‐\\nmon v. Williams, 823 F.3d 1088, 1100 (7th Cir. 2016), in which a claim was\\nprocedurally defaulted because petitioner did not raise it before the state\\ncourts. While Felton’s only mention of cumulative review before the Wis‐\\nconsin Court of Appeals was in a subheading of his brief stating, “Indi‐\\nvidually or cumulatively, these deficiencies prejudice Felton,” we need\\nnot undertake a procedural default analysis because Felton also did not\\nassert this argument before the district court.\\n\\f24 No. 18‐1954\\n\\ndoes not mean it applied the outcome‐determinative standard\\nthat the Supreme Court declined to adopt in Strickland, par‐\\nticularly because it is modified by no “reasonable probabil‐\\nity.” 466 U.S. at 693 (declining to adopt an outcome‐determi‐\\nnative standard, “that counsel’s deficient conduct more likely\\nthan not altered the outcome in the case.”) (emphasis added);\\nsee Ruhl v. Hardy, 743 F.3d 1083, 1092 (7th Cir. 2014) (summa‐\\nrizing that to establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a de‐\\nfendant must show, in part, that “there is a reasonable proba‐\\nbility that counsel’s errors affected the outcome of the proceed‐\\ning.”) (emphasis added). We are also unpersuaded by Felton’s\\nargument that the state appellate court’s conclusion that “the\\nState’s case did not hinge on House’s testimony” is proof it\\napplied an outcome‐determinative approach. In so stating,\\nthe Wisconsin Court of Appeals was describing House’s testi‐\\nmony in relation to the other evidence presented at trial, in‐\\ncluding the trial evidence undermining House’s credibility. In\\nother words, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals was stating why\\ncounsel’s failure to object did not “undermine confidence in\\nthe outcome” of the trial. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694. This is\\nexactly what the Wisconsin Court of Appeals was required to\\ndo to determine whether there was a “reasonable probability\\nthat, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the\\nproceeding would have been different.” Id. Therefore, our re‐\\nview of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals’s denial of Felton’s\\nineffective assistance of counsel claim based on prejudice is\\n“highly deferential.” Hinesley v. Knight, 837 F.3d 721, 732 (7th\\nCir. 2016) (quoting Burt v. Titlow, 571 U.S. 12, 18 (2013)).\\n Because we will review the prejudice determination of the\\nWisconsin Court of Appeals for whether it was unreasonable\\nin light of the evidence presented, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2), and\\nStrickland’s performance prong de novo, we will first consider\\n\\fNo. 18‐1954 25\\n\\nthe prejudice prong. Only if Felton prevails on the prejudice\\nprong will we need to consider the performance prong. See\\nStrickland, 466 U.S. at 697 (noting “there is no reason for a\\ncourt deciding an ineffective assistance claim … to address\\nboth components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an in‐\\nsufficient showing on one.”).\\n With the standard of review decided, we turn to the prej‐\\nudice prong of Felton’s ineffective assistance claim. To estab‐\\nlish prejudice, Felton must show “that there is a reasonable\\nprobability that, but for counselʹs unprofessional errors, the\\nresult of the proceeding would have been different. A reason‐\\nable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confi‐\\ndence in the outcome.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694. Felton must\\ndo more than show that “it is possible a reasonable doubt\\nmight have been established if counsel acted differently.”\\nHarrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 111 (2011). “Instead, Strick‐\\nland asks whether it is ‘reasonably likely’ the result would\\nhave been different.” Id. (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 696).\\n“The likelihood of a different result must be substantial, not\\njust conceivable.” Id. at 112.\\n Felton argues his trial counsel erred in two ways: by fail‐\\ning to object to the prosecutor’s closing argument statement\\nregarding the availability of a sentence modification for\\nHouse and by failing to call medical experts at trial. We first\\naddress counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s closing\\nargument. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals held counsel’s\\nfailure to object to the prosecutor’s statement was not preju‐\\ndicial. The state appellate court noted House had credibility\\nissues, citing his criminal history, and counsel diminished the\\nimpact of the State’s statement by noting the availability of a\\n\\f26 No. 18‐1954\\n\\nsentence modification in the future. We conclude that this is\\nnot an unreasonable conclusion in light of the facts.\\n House had a host of credibility problems, and the jury was\\naware of these problems. At the time of trial, House was in jail\\nand had nine or ten prior convictions. He was known as a jail‐\\nhouse lawyer, snitch, and scam artist. Moreover, as trial coun‐\\nsel demonstrated through the jailhouse phone calls, House\\nwas willing to reveal information he obtained while in prison\\nto law enforcement for his own benefit and then later lie un‐\\nder oath about doing just that. Whether House received a ben‐\\nefit for his testimony at Felton’s trial did not diminish House’s\\nsignificant credibility problems. Any objection to the prosecu‐\\ntor’s non‐evidentiary statement in closing argument rebuttal\\nwould not have altered House’s testimony about Felton’s con‐\\nfession. The jury also heard Felton’s counsel’s closing argu‐\\nment where she asserted that House did not receive any ben‐\\nefit yet. Therefore, even if counsel erred by not objecting to the\\nprosecutor’s closing argument rebuttal statement, there was\\nnot a substantial likelihood of a different result had counsel\\nobjected, Strickland, 466 U.S. at 696, and we conclude the Wis‐\\nconsin Court of Appeals was not unreasonable in concluding\\nthat Felton was not prejudiced by counsel’s failure to object,\\ncf. Baer v. Neal, 879 F.3d 769, 788 (7th Cir. 2018) (When review‐\\ning a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, “we are to consider\\nthe prosecutorʹs conduct not in isolation, but in the context of\\nthe trial as a whole, to determine if such conduct was so in‐\\nflammatory and prejudicial to the defendant … as to deprive\\nhim of a fair trial.”) (internal quotations and citations omit‐\\nted).\\n Regarding counsel’s other error, Felton argues having ex‐\\nperts to challenge the State’s medical evidence “was essential\\n\\fNo. 18‐1954 27\\n\\nto the defense because Felton said J.J. accidentally slipped and\\nfell in the bathtub. If experts could show the accident as a\\nplausible cause of death, the jury could harbor reasonable\\ndoubt.” In support of his claim of prejudice, Felton also as‐\\nserts that his experts made two key points: first, there was no\\nmedical evidence to support a diagnosis of shaking, and sec‐\\nond, his experts supported his claim that J.J.’s injuries were\\nthe result of a relatively minor fall.4\\n Taking the second point first, Felton’s medical expert tes‐\\ntimony does not support the theory that J.J.’s bathtub slip and\\nfall caused his death. Those experts testified that J.J.’s injuries\\nwere consistent with a fall from two to four feet or striking\\nsomething with the force of a fall from two to four feet. J.J.\\nwas 24.5 inches tall. Even if J.J. slid from the seated position\\nand hit his head in the tub, such a fall would only have been\\nfrom about one foot and would not have been a free fall, but,\\nrather, a slide from the seated position. Therefore, there is not\\na reasonable probability that Felton would not have been con‐\\nvicted because the habeas medical testimony would not have\\nsupported the claim that J.J.’s death was caused by his bath‐\\ntub fall.\\n Furthermore, both the trial and habeas medical experts\\nagreed that J.J. was not mobile at the time of his death, and\\nthere was no evidence at trial that someone fell while holding\\nJ.J. To the extent that Felton’s theory was that someone else\\n\\n\\n 4 While he argued before the district court that his post‐trial experts\\nrebutted the State’s medical expert testimony regarding when J.J.’s inju‐\\nries were incurred, Felton concedes on appeal that neither sides’ experts\\ncould narrow the timing of the injuries to one particular suspect.\\n\\f28 No. 18‐1954\\n\\nhurt J.J. at the playground, trial counsel elicited testimony\\nfrom Dr. Vardis that, hypothetically, J.J.’s injuries could have\\nbeen the result of a playground fall. And the jury heard testi‐\\nmony about Sasha bumping J.J.’s head on the door frame and\\nmedical testimony from Dr. Taylor that such a bump on the\\nleft side of the head would not have caused J.J.’s injuries. Sim‐\\nilarly, Dr. Barnes testified at the habeas hearing that J.J.’s in‐\\njuries were not the result of an accidental bump to his head.\\n Regarding shaking, it is true that two of the State’s experts\\ntestified at trial that J.J. had been shaken, and according to\\nDr. Vardis, shaken severely, and that Felton’s habeas experts\\nrebutted that testimony citing the absence of a neck injury.\\nShaking, however, was not the only evidence the jury heard\\nabout the cause of death. Dr. Witeck testified that the cause of\\nJ.J.’s death was “head injuries due to blunt force trauma.” And\\neven Dr. Vardis testified that J.J. had been slammed into a\\nhard object, which is consistent with the testimony of Dr.\\nBarnes that even if J.J. had been shaken, his injuries were from\\nsome sort of impact and would not have been from shaking\\nalone. In light of this evidence, the Wisconsin Court of Ap‐\\npeals was not unreasonable in its conclusion that “we are not\\nconvinced that the differences in expert medical testimony\\nwere significant enough to undermine our confidence in the\\noutcome or prevent the real controversy from being tried”.5\\n\\n 5To the extent that Felton’s argument that the state appellate court\\nunreasonably applied Strickland’s prejudice standard to the facts is also an\\nargument that the state appellate court’s decision is “based on an unrea‐\\nsonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the\\nstate court proceeding,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), that argument is unavailing.\\nThe Wisconsin Court of Appeals was critical that Felton’s citations did not\\nsupport particular assertions, were only partially true, or were completely\\nabsent in support of certain claims. Because Felton’s brief was required to\\n\\fNo. 18‐1954 29\\n\\n In support of his claim of prejudice, Felton further argues\\nthat House’s testimony corroborated the State’s medical testi‐\\nmony and, in turn, the State’s medical testimony corroborated\\nHouse’s testimony. House’s testimony, however, did not cor‐\\nroborate the medical evidence in the way Felton asserts in his\\nbrief. Without citation to the record, Felton repeatedly states\\nthat House testified that Felton confessed to shaking and\\nslamming J.J. At trial, though, House never testified about\\nshaking, but rather testified that Felton “swung [the baby]\\ninto the bathroom door.” Further, the habeas medical testi‐\\nmony did not undermine House’s testimony, and, in fact, was\\nsupported in part by Dr. Plunkett’s testimony that J.J. could\\nhave been struck with the same force as a three to four foot\\nfall. Even if the habeas medical experts had testified at trial\\nand Felton’s counsel had objected to the prosecutor’s closing\\nargument, it was not reasonably likely the jury’s decision\\nwould have been different. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 696.\\n Finally, as the Wisconsin Court of Appeals noted, counsel\\npresented evidence that others had “custody of [J.J.] on the\\nday he was admitted to the hospital,” and these alleged errors\\ndid not affect that evidence. Similarly, the unfavorable trial\\ntestimony about Felton was unaffected by these alleged er‐\\nrors. Id. (noting that some errors will not affect some of the\\nfactual findings). Felton’s failure to tell anyone about J.J.’s slip\\n\\ncontain “a statement of facts relevant to the issues presented for review,\\nwith appropriate references to the record,” Wis. Stat. 809.19(1)(d) and\\n“[j]udges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in the record,” Gross\\nv. Town of Cicero, 619 F.3d 697, 702 (7th Cir. 2010), the Wisconsin Court of\\nAppeals’s conclusion about a lack of prejudice was not unreasonable. See\\ngenerally United States v. Lewis, 594 F.3d 1270, 1275 (10th Cir. 2010) (“[I]t is\\nnot this court’s duty to scour without guidance a voluminous record for\\nevidence supporting the government’s theory.”).\\n\\f30 No. 18‐1954\\n\\nin the bathtub, including Sasha when she phoned from work\\nor the hospital physicians, his delay in telling the police J.J.\\nfell in the tub, testimony that he was goofing around while his\\nson was in the NICU suffering severe brain trauma, testimony\\nthat Felton stated at the hospital that he did not want to go to\\njail, testimony that he had limited experience caring for J.J. by\\nhimself, and testimony he compelled his cellmate to sign a re‐\\nquest form he had written in an attempt presumably to un‐\\ndermine House were all unaffected by the errors that Felton\\nnow alleges. And as we discussed above, the habeas medical\\ntestimony would not have supported Felton’s claim about the\\ncause of J.J.’s injury. Accordingly, the Wisconsin Court of Ap‐\\npeals did not unreasonably conclude that Felton was not prej‐\\nudiced by counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s state‐\\nment and failure to call medical experts.\\n III.\\n We AFFIRM the denial of Felton’s petition for a writ of\\nhabeas corpus.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4407897/\", \"author_raw\": \"Daniel Anthony Manion\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"RIPPLE"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"MANION"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"BRENNAN"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4630644/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":6,"string":"6"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Jeremiah FELTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Bryan BARTOW, Respondent-Appellee.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-06-18\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18‐1954\nJEREMIAH FELTON,\n Petitioner‐Appellant,\n v.\n\nBRYAN BARTOW,\n Respondent‐Appellee.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Eastern District of Wisconsin.\n No. 14‐cv‐965 — Nancy Joseph, Magistrate Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED FEBRUARY 22, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 18, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before RIPPLE, MANION, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\n MANION, Circuit Judge. A jury convicted Jeremiah Felton of\nfirst degree intentional homicide in Wisconsin state court for\nthe death of his three‐month‐old son, Jeremiah Felton Jr. (J.J.).\nThe jury heard testimony about the days leading up to J.J.’s\ndeath, such as those who cared for and had contact with him,\nincluding Felton. The jury also heard about Felton’s conver‐\nsations with police, whom he told that J.J. had slipped and hit\nhis head in the bathtub, and with fellow jail inmate, Douglas\n\f2 No. 18‐1954\n\nHouse, who testified that Felton said he had swung J.J. into a\nbathroom door. J.J.’s treating physicians and the medical ex‐\naminer also testified about J.J.’s injuries and cause of death,\nwhich two of the physicians stated, in part, was due to shak‐\ning. The medical examiner concluded that blunt force trauma\nwas the cause of death. The jury found Felton guilty.\n Felton sought post‐conviction relief in the Wisconsin state\ncourt based on ineffective assistance of counsel. In particular,\nFelton cited his attorney’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s\nstatement during closing argument that House could not re‐\nceive a sentence modification for his testimony in Felton’s trial\nand failure to secure medical expert testimony to rebut the\nState’s witnesses. At the post‐conviction hearing, Felton’s\ncounsel testified as well as three medical experts who con‐\ncluded J.J. had not been shaken and J.J.’s injuries were con‐\nsistent with a fall of two to four feet. The state trial court de‐\nnied Felton’s petition, and the Wisconsin Court of Appeals af‐\nfirmed the denial. The Wisconsin Supreme Court summarily\ndenied Felton’s petition for review. Felton sought a writ of ha‐\nbeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the district court. The\ndistrict court denied Felton’s petition, and Felton now appeals\nto this court. Because the decision of the Wisconsin Court of\nAppeals was not unreasonable, Felton’s petition is denied.\n I.\nA. Criminal Trial1\n J.J. Felton was born on February 16, 2008. During his short\nlife, J.J. lived with his mother, Sasha Fulton, and his father,\n\n\n 1Unless otherwise noted, the facts are drawn from the testimony and\nother evidence at Felton’s criminal jury trial.\n\fNo. 18‐1954 3\n\nJeremiah Felton, would sometimes stay with them. Sasha and\nFelton were not married. They had renewed their relationship\nin June 2008, and Felton moved with Sasha and J.J. to a new\napartment the weekend before J.J. died. On Sunday, June 1,\n2008, J.J. spent the day at the park with various family mem‐\nbers, including his parents. Sasha took J.J. home around sup‐\npertime while Felton stayed out until after midnight. That\nnight, Felton stayed with Sasha and J.J. at the new apartment.\nSasha’s cousin, Bryiana Fulton, and her baby also stayed there\nthat night.\n 1. The Day at the Apartment\n The next morning, while Felton slept, Sasha fed and\nplayed with J.J. before going to work shortly before 9 a.m. Bry‐\niana sometimes cared for J.J., but that day, Sasha told her to\nleave him with Felton. It was the first time Sasha left J.J. in\nFelton’s care for the day while she was at work.\n While Felton was home with J.J., different family members\ncame in and out of the apartment throughout the day. Bryiana\nleft the apartment sometime after 9 a.m. When she returned\naround noon, Felton and J.J. were there along with Byrian Ful‐\nton (Bryiana’s brother) and Casey Fulton (Sasha’s brother).\nJ.J. seemed to be acting normally at that time. Bryiana gave\nhim a bottle before leaving around 12:30 p.m. Casey and Byr‐\nian left at the same time, and Felton remained in the apart‐\nment with J.J. Sasha called Felton from work about 2:30 or\n3 p.m., and he told her that J.J. had been sleeping all day.\n Sasha’s fifteen‐year‐old cousin, Anthony Hendrix, came\nby the apartment sometime after his school let out for the day\nat 2:30 p.m. There he found Felton alone in the apartment with\nJ.J., who was sleeping on the couch while Felton was getting\n\f4 No. 18‐1954\n\nout of the shower. Hendrix testified that J.J. cried multiple\ntimes while he was there, and that both he and Felton picked\nhim up. Hendrix put J.J. down in his crib and patted his back.\nJ.J. stopped crying, and Hendrix left soon after.\n When Sasha returned home from work around 5:25 p.m.,\nshe checked on J.J., who was sleeping. She let him sleep; J.J.\nwas a fussy baby, and Sasha did not want to disturb him. Bry‐\niana came back around the same time. Felton asked Sasha to\ndrive him to his friend’s graduation. After eating a sandwich,\nSasha borrowed Bryiana’s car to drive Felton to the gradua‐\ntion ceremony and returned about a half hour to forty\nminutes later. While Sasha and Felton were gone, Bryiana\nstayed at Sasha’s apartment with her son and J.J. When Sasha\nreturned, she did not check on J.J. right away, but let him sleep\nand began cleaning the kitchen and bathroom. About fifteen\nminutes later, she heard J.J. make a funny noise and went to\ncheck on him. There she found J.J. with one eye open and one\neye shut. Sasha cried out that something was wrong. Bryiana\nthought that Sasha was overreacting until she saw J.J. She then\ntold Sasha to call 911 while she attempted to revive J.J.\n 2. At the Hospital\n J.J. was taken by ambulance to St. Vincent Hospital in\nGreen Bay around 7:30 p.m. Dr. John Taylor, pediatric critical\ncare physician, first saw J.J. shortly after he arrived at the hos‐\npital. Dr. Taylor intubated J.J. and ordered x‐rays and a CT\nscan. The CT scan revealed J.J. had a skull fracture just above\nand slightly behind his right ear, specifically his right parietal\nbone, bleeding under his skull and in his brain, and retinal\nhemorrhages. Dr. Taylor told Sasha and Felton he was con‐\ncerned someone had hurt J.J. because there was no record of\na car accident or someone falling or tripping down the stairs\n\fNo. 18‐1954 5\n\nwith their son, and J.J. was not yet rolling or moving by him‐\nself. Sasha told Dr. Taylor that the day before while she had\nbeen carrying J.J. in her left arm, J.J. bumped his head as she\nwalked through the door. Felton did not give any explanation\nto Dr. Taylor.\n A number of family members came to the hospital that\nnight. Some of them played in the halls, including Felton, who\npushed Casey around in a wheelchair. Hospital staff asked\nthem to leave because they were too noisy and disruptive. Fel‐\nton and Sasha were allowed to stay, and they fell asleep in the\nfamily waiting room.\n That same night, the hospital or Brown County Human\nServices contacted the police about J.J.’s serious injuries and\nthe lack of explanation for them. Detective Robert Haglund\nand Detective Walter Wickman of the Green Bay Police De‐\npartment arrived at the hospital around 3 a.m. on Tuesday,\nJune 3. Haglund woke Felton and Sasha. He interviewed\nSasha with a human services representative present, and\nWickman interviewed Felton in a separate room. There Felton\ntold Wickman that he did not know what could have hap‐\npened because J.J. was with him or people they knew. He told\nWickman about Sasha bumping J.J.’s head into the door, but\nprovided no other explanation about how J.J. might have sus‐\ntained his injuries. After interviewing Sasha, Haglund joined\nWickman and Felton and asked Felton what had happened.\nAfter confirming Felton told him the same thing he had just\ntold Wickman, Haglund and Wickman left the hospital.\n Haglund returned to the hospital the next day and spoke\nwith various family members, including Bryiana and Hen‐\ndrix, asking them what might have happened to J.J. He\nlearned about the move to the new apartment on Friday and\n\f6 No. 18‐1954\n\nSaturday and the day at the park on Sunday. At the end of his\ninterviews, Haglund asked the family, including Felton,\nSasha, and Bryiana, to be quiet because they were being noisy\nplaying up and down the halls. Haglund also told them he\nbelieved one of the family members was responsible for J.J.’s\ninjuries and his prime suspects were Felton, Bryiana, and\nSasha because they had been alone with J.J. on Monday. Hag‐\nlund also advised Felton to check in with his probation officer\nas he was required to do if he spoke with law enforcement.\n While at the hospital, Felton stated more than once, “I just\ndon’t want to go to jail.” In one instance, Bryiana testified Fel‐\nton expressed frustration over what he thought was a lack of\ninformation from doctors, and he did not want to hit the doc‐\ntor and go to jail.\n 3. J.J.’s Death and Felton’s Conversation with Police and\n Fellow Inmate\n J.J.’s condition worsened, and he died from his injuries on\nJune 5th. Shortly after his son’s death, Felton went to the\nBrown County Jail on a probation hold. On June 9, 2008, Fel‐\nton asked to talk with police and spoke with Haglund. Felton\ngave Haglund a statement, which Haglund typed and Felton\nread and signed. In that statement, Felton recounted that\naround 2 p.m. on the day J.J. was rushed to the hospital, “I got\nin the bathtub with my baby and started giving him a bath.\nThere was only two inches of water. He was sitting between\nmy legs and his butt slipped forward and his head came back‐\nwards and his head hit the bottom of the tub between my legs.\nHis right ear went in the water, but his face didn’t go under\nthe water. He started crying. I wiped him off, got him dressed,\nand gave him a bottle, patted him to sleep while he was lying\non the couch.” Felton told Haglund he felt it in his legs when\n\fNo. 18‐1954 7\n\nJ.J. hit the bottom of the tub and J.J. hit the tub “kind of hard.”\nFelton said he was going to tell Haglund about this in the hos‐\npital, but Haglund made him nervous.\n Haglund spoke again with Felton on June 12th telling him\nthe doctors said that the slip in the tub could not have caused\nJ.J.’s injuries. When Haglund left the interview room, Felton\nstood by the door trying to listen to what was being said out‐\nside the room, which Haglund stated witnesses typically do\nnot do. After speaking with Felton on June 12th, Haglund sent\nthe case file over to the District Attorney’s Office recommend‐\ning Felton be charged with first degree intentional homicide\nfor J.J.’s death. On June 13, 2008, the Green Bay Police Depart‐\nment issued a press release about its request and stated J.J.\nhad suffered a skull fracture from blunt force trauma. The\npress release did not say where the fracture was located on\nthe skull.\n Meanwhile, Douglas House, one of Felton’s fellow in‐\nmates at the Brown County Jail, sent police a request form,\notherwise known as a “kite,” dated June 13, 2008. House had\nnine to ten prior convictions and had a reputation as both a\njailhouse lawyer and a snitch. House’s kite stated, “I have con‐\nclusive evidence to convict Jeremiah Felton, Sr. in the death of\nhis infant son, Junior. That was caused by right side trauma\nto head behind right ear. Will only come out if called out as\nan attorney visit.”\n Haglund spoke with House on June 16th. (It was the not\nthe first time Haglund and House spoke with one another;\nthey had previously talked about other cases.) House told\nHaglund that when Felton approached him, Felton had not\nyet been charged with J.J.’s death, and they discussed the time\nconstraints for Felton’s probation hold. After that, Felton told\n\f8 No. 18‐1954\n\nhim about J.J. House told Haglund that Felton had told him\nthat J.J. was getting on his nerves, so he swung J.J. into the\nbathroom door hitting the right side of J.J.’s head behind his\near. House also asked Haglund to look into whether the police\nwere harassing his children.\n House spoke again with Haglund on June 23rd. Haglund\ntold House that the police were watching another house near\nhis children. House, in turn, told Haglund that Felton told\nhim that the police questioned him about J.J. and he planned\nto blame it on his girlfriend’s sister. In addition to telling Hag‐\nlund about Felton, House asked Haglund if he could look into\npolice harassing his son and daughter. Haglund checked into\nthis and later told House that the police were not watching his\nkids, but were watching a nearby house.\n 4. Other Criminal Trial Testimony\n Felton was charged with first degree intentional homicide\nin J.J.’s death, and the case proceeded to trial. Several wit‐\nnesses, including Sasha and Felton’s mother, testified that J.J.\nwas a fussy baby. On one occasion, Bryiana “popped” J.J. and\nher son on their diapers when they were “both a little crabby.”\nSasha testified that she did not like that Bryiana spanked J.J.,\nbut she was very close with her cousin and trusted her to care\nfor J.J. As for Felton, Sasha and others testified that he was\ngood with his children and nieces and nephews, and they also\ntestified that if J.J. got fussy, Felton would pass J.J. to someone\nelse or put him in his car seat until he stopped crying.\n House testified at trial:\n A. Well, he [Felton] said that he had been home, I be‐\n lieve he said he was home with his girlfriend’s sister,\n or wife’s sister, one or the other, and that he was giving\n\fNo. 18‐1954 9\n\n the baby a bath, and the baby slipped. That the baby\n had either gotten water in his eyes or mouth and\n started crying, and he tried for a long period of time to\n quiet the baby down, but that didn’t happen.\n Q. What else did he continue to tell you what hap‐\n pened?\n A. He had gotten frustrated and was holding the baby,\n and then swung the baby into the bathroom door. The\n baby, Jeremiah, hit his head on the right side, and he\n pointed to the left ‐ ‐ or the right side behind his ear of\n where the baby hit his head.\n Q. I was going to ask, how do you know it was the right\n side?\n A. Well, as he was telling me, he made the motion, and\n he said he was holding the baby, swung the baby, and\n the baby hit his head, and I said where, and he said\n right here, and he pointed right behind his head.\n …\n Q. Did he say anything else to you after ‐ ‐\n A. He did. You know, he made it sound like he was\n going to put the blame on the ‐ ‐ the girlfriend’s sister,\n and he said he ‐ ‐ he also said you know, for a substan‐\n tial amount of time that baby shut up so he knew some‐\n thing was wrong.\n House found Felton’s demeanor odd because “it was like\nthere was no concern whatsoever for the baby.” House also\ntold the jury about Felton’s confession and identified Felton\nin the courtroom. He testified that after Felton was charged,\n\f10 No. 18‐1954\n\nFelton approached House about the kite and asked why\nHouse snitched on him.\n On cross‐examination, House denied ever talking with his\nattorney about getting anything in return for information he\nhad about Felton. Felton’s counsel impeached House by play‐\ning two recorded telephone conversations that House had\nwhile in the Brown County Jail. The first call was between\nHouse and his attorney. During that call, House’s attorney\ntold him she had spoken with Haglund who said he was un‐\nsure he could do anything for House unless House testified in\nFelton’s case. House’s attorney also discussed information\nHouse had about another homicide. The second call was be‐\ntween House and one of his daughters. House’s daughter told\nhim that Haglund had said House needed to testify “against\n[sic] for the baby or something.” On redirect, House testified\nhis case was over and he did not receive any consideration in\nhis case for his testimony in Felton’s trial.\n Felton called his Brown County Jail cellmate, Ishtayopi\nJones, to testify. Jones came to the jail on June 14th. He was\nfamiliar with House because they had met previously, though\nhe tried to stay away from House because his family warned\nhim that House was a “con artist.” Jones stated House ex‐\npressed concern to him when he learned that Jones was room‐\ning with Felton, though House did not tell Jones why. Jones\nsaid he learned about Felton’s case from the television. Jones\nstated he did talk with Felton about House and what a “big\ntroublemaker” and “scam artist” he was.\n On cross‐examination, the prosecutor asked Jones about a\nkite he signed and dated October 8, 2008. The kite stated, in\npart, “I did not and will not try and tell on Jeremiah Felton.”\nWhen asked at trial, “What’s there to tell on Jeremiah Felton,”\n\fNo. 18‐1954 11\n\nJones responded, “Nothing, I guess.” The prosecutor further\nquestioned Jones about the kite, and Jones’s testimony made\nit clear that he knew nothing about Felton’s case from Felton\nor House and that Felton, not Jones, wrote the kite. When\nasked why he signed the request form, Jones responded,\n“‘Cause [Felton] looked pretty mad at me, then I just told him\nI’d sign it and that if he needs me to testify, I’ll do that for\nhim.” Jones also testified he told Haglund that Felton had\nnever talked with Felton about his case and that House “is just\nlying and making stuff up to get himself out of what situation\nhe’s in right now.”\n 5. Medical Testimony\n Also at trial, the State called three physicians, two of J.J.’s\ntreating physicians and the medical examiner, to present tes‐\ntimony about J.J.’s injuries and cause of death. Dr. John Tay‐\nlor, who first treated J.J. upon his arrival at the hospital, testi‐\nfied that both J.J.’s fracture and retinal hemorrhaging were the\nresult of a significant amount of force, such as a car accident.\nIn J.J.’s case, Dr. Taylor suspected “most likely that this was a\nresult of significant shaking.” Dr. Taylor stated that a bump\nlike Sasha bumping J.J.’s head in the doorway would not ac‐\ncount for J.J.’s injuries because the bump was on J.J.’s left side,\nthe force would have been insufficient, and J.J. was eating,\nsleeping, awakening, and playing in an age‐appropriate way\nafter that. He also testified that it is difficult to establish a time\nframe for when the injuries were sustained. According to\nDr. Taylor, it could be at the longest a day, but he believed it\nwas within an hour or two of the injuries presenting them‐\nselves.\n A couple hypotheticals were posed to Dr. Taylor while he\nwas testifying. The prosecutor asked him about a child J.J.’s\n\f12 No. 18‐1954\n\nsize slipping in the bathtub between someone else’s legs and\nhitting his head. Dr. Taylor responded that the distance of the\nfall would not have caused the skull fracture, hemorrhages,\nand bruising in the back of the eye. He stated that J.J.’s injuries\nwere more consistent with his head being swung into a door\nthan falling in a bathtub. Felton’s counsel asked whether, hy‐\npothetically, those injuries could have resulted from someone\nfalling with J.J. at the playground. Dr. Taylor responded that\nit was “[e]xtraordinarily unlikely, but … there was a\nminiscule possibility.”\n Another of J.J.’s treating physicians, Dr. Ralph Vardis, also\ntestified. He concluded that J.J.’s injuries were consistent with\nbeing violently shaken and slammed into a hard surface. On\ncross‐examination, Dr. Vardis stated that the injuries could\nhave been caused by a fifteen‐year‐old so long as it was vio‐\nlent and intentional. Dr. Vardis testified about the progression\nof J.J.’s symptoms, namely the brain swelling, and concluded\nthat J.J. was so severely shaken that his brain completely died.\nHe said J.J.’s brain bleeding and skull fracture were not likely\ncaused by a short fall, but rather “[t]he only way you can get\nthe kind of findings that we saw is if the height was one to\ntwo stories from the top of a building.” According to Dr. Var‐\ndis, some of J.J.’s bleeding was due to the skull fracture and\nsome of the bleeding was due to the shaking. He acknowl‐\nedged on cross‐examination that there was a disagreement\nbetween his opinion regarding J.J.’s cause of death, i.e. shaken\nbaby syndrome, and the medical examiner’s conclusion in the\nautopsy report, i.e. head injuries due to blunt force trauma.\nAs for timing, Dr. Vardis noted that there is no way to tell\nwhen the injuries occurred. He stated that the injury could not\nhave happened on Sunday, but it could have happened be‐\ntween five minutes to twelve hours from when the symptoms\n\fNo. 18‐1954 13\n\nwere evident. He also expected the same physical findings if\nit had taken place at 1 p.m. or 5 p.m. the day J.J. came to the\nhospital.\n The third doctor to testify at trial was Dr. Mark Witeck. Dr.\nWiteck, a forensic pathologist, served as the medical examiner\nfor Brown County. He performed the autopsy on J.J. Based on\nhis examination, Dr. Witeck concluded that J.J. died of “cra‐\nnial cerebral trauma, in other words, head injuries due to\nblunt force trauma.” Dr. Witeck testified that J.J. was just un‐\nder 15 pounds and was 24.5 inches long, had no external inju‐\nries, including bruises, and his anterior fontanel, commonly\nreferred to as the soft spot in the front of the head, was bulg‐\ning outward. This was consistent with brain swelling, and the\nseverity and global nature of the swelling was consistent with\na head injury. J.J. had fractures on the right side and front base\nof his skull in “what’s called the orbital plate, that’s the little\nbone plate that’s just above the eye.” There was also a blood\nclot and bleeding on the surface of the right side of the brain.\nDr. Witeck stated “that requires a lot of trauma to the head to\nget that kind of bleeding.” Dr. Witeck testified J.J.’s brain\nbleeding was consistent with the fracture. While he stated eye\nhemorrhages are often seen in children who are shaken, he\ndid not opine whether J.J. had been shaken.\n According to Dr. Witeck, the fracture was consistent with\nhaving been caused by blunt force trauma. This means J.J.’s\nhead was hit with something or against something, though\nthere was no way to know whether it was a single blow or\nmultiple blows. He also said J.J.’s injuries were consistent\nwith being swung into an object with significant force.\nDr. Witeck testified J.J.’s fractures were not consistent with a\nbaby standing and falling to the floor, but were consistent\n\f14 No. 18‐1954\n\nwith a fall only from a large height, like off of a one‐ or two‐\nstory building. When asked whether a child of 24.5 inches tall\nsitting in a bathtub, slipping, and hitting his head on the bath‐\ntub could cause the injuries that he saw, Dr. Witeck re‐\nsponded, “Not at all.” On cross‐examination, Dr. Witeck tes‐\ntified a premature birth could play a part in a child’s suscep‐\ntibility to fracture.\n Felton did not call any medical experts to testify on his be‐\nhalf. (As discussed below, his attorney consulted with her\nphysician husband and a medical student, but did not call ei‐\nther as witnesses at trial.) Other than the testimony elicited\nfrom the State’s medical experts on cross‐examination, Felton\ndid not present any medical evidence at trial.\n 6. Jury Instructions, Closing Arguments, and Verdict\n After the close of evidence, the trial judge instructed the\njury. In part, the judge instructed, “Consider only the evi‐\ndence received during this trial as given to you by these in‐\nstructions, and from these alone, guided by your soundest\nreason and best judgment, reach your verdict.” The judge also\ninstructed, “Remarks of the attorneys are not evidence. If the\nremarks suggested certain facts not in evidence, disregard the\nsuggestion. In a few moments, you will hear the closing argu‐\nments of the attorneys. Consider carefully the closing argu‐\nments of the attorneys, but their arguments and conclusions\nand opinions are not evidence. Draw your own conclusions\nfrom the evidence and decide upon your verdict according to\nthe evidence and the instructions given you by the court.” Af‐\nter instructions, the prosecutor and Felton’s counsel pre‐\nsented their closing arguments to the jury.\n\fNo. 18‐1954 15\n\n During closing arguments, the prosecutor argued in part:\n What House is testifying has to be the truth … what\n did he get for testifying on October 21st or 22nd, 2009?\n The answer is nothing. Absolutely nothing. Is there a\n case pending against him? No. Long gone. Over. Done\n with. There’s nothing that House was going to gain by\n testifying. Because his case was over. It was done. Per‐\n haps, just maybe, perhaps, he testifies because he was\n subpoenaed by the state and maybe, even somebody,\n even a criminal like Doug House, can do the right thing\n once in a while.\n In response, Felton’s counsel stated:\n And by the way, I am going to set the record straight.\n State said, well, his case is settled. He didn’t get any\n concessions. Cooperation with law enforcement, that\n matter can be reopened any time for a sentence modi‐\n fication. So the fact that he hasn’t received any benefit\n yet, it might be ‘cause we had to wait for this case to go\n forward. Doesn’t mean he’s not getting it. It means he\n hasn’t gotten it yet.\n And the prosecutor responded in the State’s rebuttal:\n Mr. House has absolutely nothing to gain here. He was\n honest with you. His case is closed. He can’t receive\n anything for his testimony at this point. … [H]e won’t\n gain anything, no advantages from the state. Just a\n lightening of his conscience. … And he’s received no\n consideration for this. His case is closed. Once again,\n it’s done.\n Felton’s counsel did not object to this latter statement.\n(Several months later, House received a sentence reduction\n\f16 No. 18‐1954\n\nfor his testimony at Felton’s trial, though the State remained\nsilent on that motion.) After deliberating for about four hours,\nthe jury found Felton guilty of first degree intentional homi‐\ncide. Felton was sentenced to life imprisonment.\nB. Post‐conviction Proceedings\n Felton filed a post‐conviction motion asserting ineffective\nassistance of counsel based on two alleged errors. First, he ar‐\ngued that his attorney erred by not securing medical experts\nto rebut the State’s medical testimony at trial. Second, Felton\nargued his attorney erred by not objecting to the prosecutor’s\nclosing argument rebuttal statement that House would re‐\nceive no benefit from his testimony. 2\n 1. Felton’s Counsel\n The state trial court conducted a hearing on Felton’s mo‐\ntion. There Felton’s trial counsel testified. Felton was first rep‐\nresented by a public defender, and counsel began to represent\nFelton after he and his family privately retained her. While\nthe original agreement was that she would receive $15,000 to\ntake the case through trial, she essentially represented Felton\npro‐bono receiving only $750 in payments. Despite a lack of\ncompensation, counsel continued to represent Felton because\nshe felt strongly about his case. Financial constraints, though,\nimpacted her decision about medical experts. Counsel testi‐\nfied that she did not hire medical experts because of the ex‐\npense (the two out‐of‐state experts she contacted both wanted\na minimum $2,500 retainer, and she never sought funding\n\n 2Felton also invoked the state trial court’s discretionary power to\ngrant him post‐conviction relief in the interest of justice asserting the jury\ndid not have the opportunity to hear the medical testimony and was mis‐\nled by the prosecutor’s closing argument statements about House.\n\fNo. 18‐1954 17\n\nthrough the state public defender’s office). Counsel also\nstated that she did not think that “hired guns” would play\nwell to a Green Bay jury. Instead, she researched medical lit‐\nerature and consulted her husband, a general internist who\nspecialized in endocrinology, and a medical student, who was\nworking for her husband, about the case. The medical student\nhad relationships with physicians at Milwaukee Children’s\nHospital and presented J.J.’s file to one of the doctors there.\nThat doctor said that the race of the family was the first thing\nat which he would look. This raised red flags for counsel, and\nshe did not pursue an evaluation of the case from that doctor.\nFinally, when asked, counsel testified she was aware of State\nv. Edmunds, 746 N.W.2d 590 (Wis. 2008), in which the Wiscon‐\nsin Supreme Court granted a new trial to a defendant based\non newly discovered evidence rebutting the shaken baby syn‐\ndrome theory. Counsel stated she did not contact any of the\nEdmunds experts.\n Regarding House, counsel said she repeatedly argued to\nthe jury why it should not believe House. She also noted she\nworked hard to discredit Detective Haglund, including ques‐\ntioning him about any concessions for House, such as check‐\ning on the surveillance of his daughter. She also explored al‐\nternate avenues from which House could have learned about\nthe case, such as the Green Bay Police Department press re‐\nlease. She stated she made the strategic decision not to object\nto the prosecutor’s closing argument rebuttal statement about\nHouse because she concluded it was better in the face of the\njury not to object. Moreover, counsel noted that she “objected\nby giving a narration of my objection, rather than saying, ob‐\njection.” In other words, she described to the jury House\ncould be entitled to a sentence modification even if he had not\nreceived one yet.\n\f18 No. 18‐1954\n\n 2. Post‐Trial Medical Experts\n Felton also called three medical experts to testify at his\npost‐conviction hearing. These physicians were critical of the\nState’s medical experts in two key respects: they concluded\nJ.J.’s injuries were not from shaking and his injuries could\nhave been the result of a short fall.\n The first doctor to testify was Dr. Patrick Barnes, a pediat‐\nric radiologist and neuroradiologist from Stanford University\nSchool of Medicine. Dr. Barnes disagreed with the State’s ex‐\nperts that J.J. had been shaken. He noted that J.J. would have\nsuffered a neck injury if he had been shaken. Moreover,\nDr. Barnes stated that even if J.J. had been shaken, his injuries\nwould have resulted from some sort of impact and not shak‐\ning alone. He also strongly disagreed with the State’s experts\nabout J.J.’s injuries being equivalent to those of a multi‐story\nfall. Rather, Dr. Barnes testified that J.J.’s fracture was a classic\nexample of a fall between two and three feet, such as a child\nfalling while being held by a standing adult. He stated,\nthough, J.J.’s fracture and other injuries were less likely a re‐\nsult of a short fall, estimating a five percent chance. Dr. Barnes\nalso testified that J.J.’s skull fracture “is what we call a linear\nskull fracture. It’s actually a very common type of traumatic\ninjury to an infant’s skull due to accidental injury scenarios,\nlike dropping the baby to the floor or hitting the baby’s head\nagainst something, but it still doesn’t tell us if it was inten‐\ntional or accidental.” Dr. Barnes stated it is uncommon for a\nchild to die from a three or four foot fall. While a bump could\ncause a simple skull fracture, because of J.J.’s other injuries,\nnamely the brain swelling and bleeding, something other\nthan a bump to the head or banging his head against the wall\nhappened according to Dr. Barnes. Regarding the bleeding\n\fNo. 18‐1954 19\n\nbetween J.J.’s brain and skull, Dr. Barnes testified that it has\nbeen reported to be connected with either a lack of oxygen or\nblood flow to the baby’s brain or where there is malignant\nbrain swelling from either accidental or non‐accidental\ncauses. Dr. Barnes went on to testify that J.J. had lung abnor‐\nmalities suggestive of an improper intubation that could have\ninterfered with the oxygen to his brain.\n The second physician, Dr. Joseph Scheller, staff child neu‐\nrologist at Children’s National Medical Center in Washington,\nD.C., also disagreed with the State’s experts that J.J. had been\nshaken and noted the absence of a neck injury. He said J.J. had\na skull fracture, and “[i]t’s physically impossible to create a\nskull fracture without force against the outside of the head, so\nwe are sure that something happened to the outside of this\nchild’s head that was a force directed against it.” Like Dr.\nBarnes, he was critical of the State’s medical experts’ testi‐\nmony analogizing the force to that of a car accident or a multi‐\nstory fall. He testified that a short fall of two or three feet\nwould less commonly cause a skull fracture, and it was less\nlikely to have a skull fracture from a short fall than from being\nswung or slammed into a hard object. Though Dr. Scheller\nthought that J.J.’s injuries were more in line with a fall because\nof the absence of bruising, he later stated it was possible to\nhave a skull fracture without any bruising. Dr. Scheller testi‐\nfied, “I believe that the baby did develop the skull fracture,\nthe brain swelling, and the retinal hemorrhages from a short\nfall rather than having been maliciously slammed into some‐\nthing” because “from witnessed short falls, that when babies\nget a skull fracture, it is in the parietal area … and that’s where\nbaby Felton’s skull fracture was. And we really didn’t see any\nevidence of bruising. Again, if a baby’s being held violently\nand being slammed, then you’re going to look for bruising or\n\f20 No. 18‐1954\n\nbone injuries somewhere else, and we really didn’t see that.”\nHe noted a parietal fracture was a common injury in infants\nand, in his experience, if the injury is not witnessed and there\nis no other abnormality, the conclusion is that the injury was\naccidental. As for when J.J. sustained his injuries, Dr. Scheller\ntestified it could have been three to six hours, maybe twelve\nhours, but not twenty‐four hours.\n The final doctor to testify at the hearing was Dr. John Plun‐\nkett, a forensic pathologist from Minnesota. Dr. Plunkett\nstated that J.J. was pretty immobile, so “we’re not talking\nabout him rolling or falling off of some structure. We’re talk‐\ning about an adult either intentionally or accidentally drop‐\nping him or throwing him. Those are your possibilities, at\nleast from the history that I have, so you can’t draw an anal‐\nogy and just say fall.” Put another way, Dr. Plunkett testified\nthat J.J.’s fracture was “consistent with an aggressive, mali‐\ncious act against the baby’s head and it’s also consistent with\na short fall,” but there was no way to tell absolutely. Similarly,\nthere was no way to tell just by looking at the injuries whether\nthey were the result of an accidental or intentional cause ac‐\ncording to Dr. Plunkett. He stated that he would expect to see\nother injuries if a child had been swung into a wall like a base‐\nball bat. On cross‐examination, Dr. Plunkett testified it was\npossible, though, for a child to be propelled or struck against\nan object with the same velocity and acceleration that would\nresult from a three‐and‐a‐half‐foot fall.\n The state trial court denied Felton’s post‐conviction mo‐\ntion for relief, analyzing both the performance and prejudice\nprongs of the ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The Wis‐\nconsin Court of Appeals similarly denied Felton’s petition,\n\fNo. 18‐1954 21\n\nconcluding that neither counsel’s failure to object to the pros‐\necutor’s closing argument statement nor her failure to call\nmedical experts was prejudicial. The Wisconsin Supreme\nCourt summarily denied Felton’ petition for review. Felton\nfiled a petition for federal habeas relief in federal court. The\ndistrict court denied his petition, but it issued a certificate of\nappealability. Felton now appeals.\n II.\n To succeed on his claim of ineffective assistance of coun‐\nsel, Felton must show his counsel’s performance was deficient\nand he was prejudiced as a result. Strickland v. Washington, 466\nU.S. 668, 687 (1984). We are not required to consider perfor‐\nmance or prejudice in a particular order or even address “both\ncomponents of the inquiry if [Felton] makes an insufficient\nshowing on one.” Id. at 697.\n We review a district court’s denial of a petition for habeas\ncorpus de novo and findings of fact for clear error. Barrow v.\nUchtman, 398 F.3d 597, 602 (7th Cir. 2005). The Antiterrorism\nand Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) authorizes us to\ngrant habeas relief only if the state court decision was “con‐\ntrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of clearly\nestablished Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court\nof the United States” or “based on an unreasonable determi‐\nnation of the facts in the light of the evidence presented in the\nstate court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). We will consider\n“the last reasoned opinion on the claim,” which in this case is\nfrom the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. Woolley v. Rednour, 702\nF.3d 411, 421 (7th Cir. 2012) (quoting Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501\nU.S. 797, 803 (1991)). A state court’s application of federal law\nis unreasonable if it is “more than incorrect; it must have been\nobjectively unreasonable.” Id. at 420 (citing Wiggins v. Smith,\n\f22 No. 18‐1954\n\n539 U.S. 510, 520 (2003)); accord Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362,\n411 (2000). “‘Unreasonable’ in [the AEDPA] context means\nmore than just incorrect; it means something … lying well\noutside the boundaries of permissible differences of opinion.”\nMcGhee v. Dittmann, 794 F.3d 761, 769 (7th Cir. 2015) (quoting\nCorcoran v. Neal, 783 F.3d 676, 683 (7th Cir. 2015)). “The bar for\nestablishing that the state court’s application of the Strickland\n[ineffective assistance of counsel] standard was ‘unreasona‐\nble,’ is a high one.” Taylor v. Bradley, 448 F.3d 942, 948 (7th Cir.\n2006). “[A]s long as we are satisfied that the Wisconsin Court\nof Appeals took the constitutional standard seriously and pro‐\nduce[d] an answer within the range of defensible positions,\nwe will affirm the district court’s decision to deny the writ.”\nId. (citation and internal quotation omitted).\n Before turning to the merits of Felton’s claim, we must de‐\ntermine the appropriate standard of review in this case. Felton\nargues the Wisconsin Court of Appeals is not entitled to\nAEDPA deference on either the performance or prejudice\nprongs of Strickland. As for the performance prong, we agree.\nBecause the Wisconsin Court of Appeals did not address the\nperformance prong, we are to review counsel’s performance\nde novo. Woolley, 702 F.3d at 422.\n Regarding the prejudice prong, Felton argues that our re‐\nview also should be de novo because the Wisconsin Court of\nAppeals unreasonably applied Strickland. See Thomas v. Clem‐\nents, 789 F.3d 760, 767 (7th Cir. 2015) (reviewing state court’s\nprejudice prong analysis de novo where the court “only used\ntwo sentences to address the prejudice prong and did not ac‐\ntually analyze why there was no prejudice”). First, Felton as‐\nserts the state appellate court unreasonably applied the Strick‐\n\fNo. 18‐1954 23\n\nland prejudice standard to the facts by not “independently un‐\ndertaking a complete review and analysis of the trial and\npostconviction expert testimony.” Felton, however, did not\npresent this argument to the district court. “[A]rguments in a\nfederal habeas petition which were not raised in the district\ncourt are not properly raised for the first time on appeal.”\nMertz v. Williams, 771 F.3d 1035, 1043 (7th Cir. 2014). “Regard‐\nless of whether a habeas claim was fairly presented or de‐\nfaulted in the state courts, if an argument was not presented\nto the federal district court, it is forfeited in this court.” Frazier\nv. Varga, 843 F.3d 258, 262 (7th Cir. 2016). By not presenting it\nto the district court, Felton similarly forfeited his contention\nthat the Wisconsin Court of Appeals unreasonably applied\nStrickland by failing to review counsel’s errors cumulatively.\nId.3\n As he did argue before the district court, Felton contends\nthat he is entitled to de novo review because the state court im‐\nproperly used an outcome‐determinative test in applying\nStrickland. Concluding counsel’s failure to object to the prose‐\ncutor’s closing argument “was not prejudicial,” the Wisconsin\nCourt of Appeals stated, “[W]e do not believe there is a rea‐\nsonable probability that it affected the outcome of the trial.”\nThe Wisconsin Court of Appeals’s use of the word “outcome”\n\n 3 The State argues Felton did not fairly present to the state court this\nclaim of the cumulative prejudicial effects of counsel’s errors, citing Black‐\nmon v. Williams, 823 F.3d 1088, 1100 (7th Cir. 2016), in which a claim was\nprocedurally defaulted because petitioner did not raise it before the state\ncourts. While Felton’s only mention of cumulative review before the Wis‐\nconsin Court of Appeals was in a subheading of his brief stating, “Indi‐\nvidually or cumulatively, these deficiencies prejudice Felton,” we need\nnot undertake a procedural default analysis because Felton also did not\nassert this argument before the district court.\n\f24 No. 18‐1954\n\ndoes not mean it applied the outcome‐determinative standard\nthat the Supreme Court declined to adopt in Strickland, par‐\nticularly because it is modified by no “reasonable probabil‐\nity.” 466 U.S. at 693 (declining to adopt an outcome‐determi‐\nnative standard, “that counsel’s deficient conduct more likely\nthan not altered the outcome in the case.”) (emphasis added);\nsee Ruhl v. Hardy, 743 F.3d 1083, 1092 (7th Cir. 2014) (summa‐\nrizing that to establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a de‐\nfendant must show, in part, that “there is a reasonable proba‐\nbility that counsel’s errors affected the outcome of the proceed‐\ning.”) (emphasis added). We are also unpersuaded by Felton’s\nargument that the state appellate court’s conclusion that “the\nState’s case did not hinge on House’s testimony” is proof it\napplied an outcome‐determinative approach. In so stating,\nthe Wisconsin Court of Appeals was describing House’s testi‐\nmony in relation to the other evidence presented at trial, in‐\ncluding the trial evidence undermining House’s credibility. In\nother words, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals was stating why\ncounsel’s failure to object did not “undermine confidence in\nthe outcome” of the trial. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694. This is\nexactly what the Wisconsin Court of Appeals was required to\ndo to determine whether there was a “reasonable probability\nthat, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the\nproceeding would have been different.” Id. Therefore, our re‐\nview of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals’s denial of Felton’s\nineffective assistance of counsel claim based on prejudice is\n“highly deferential.” Hinesley v. Knight, 837 F.3d 721, 732 (7th\nCir. 2016) (quoting Burt v. Titlow, 571 U.S. 12, 18 (2013)).\n Because we will review the prejudice determination of the\nWisconsin Court of Appeals for whether it was unreasonable\nin light of the evidence presented, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2), and\nStrickland’s performance prong de novo, we will first consider\n\fNo. 18‐1954 25\n\nthe prejudice prong. Only if Felton prevails on the prejudice\nprong will we need to consider the performance prong. See\nStrickland, 466 U.S. at 697 (noting “there is no reason for a\ncourt deciding an ineffective assistance claim … to address\nboth components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an in‐\nsufficient showing on one.”).\n With the standard of review decided, we turn to the prej‐\nudice prong of Felton’s ineffective assistance claim. To estab‐\nlish prejudice, Felton must show “that there is a reasonable\nprobability that, but for counselʹs unprofessional errors, the\nresult of the proceeding would have been different. A reason‐\nable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confi‐\ndence in the outcome.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694. Felton must\ndo more than show that “it is possible a reasonable doubt\nmight have been established if counsel acted differently.”\nHarrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 111 (2011). “Instead, Strick‐\nland asks whether it is ‘reasonably likely’ the result would\nhave been different.” Id. (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 696).\n“The likelihood of a different result must be substantial, not\njust conceivable.” Id. at 112.\n Felton argues his trial counsel erred in two ways: by fail‐\ning to object to the prosecutor’s closing argument statement\nregarding the availability of a sentence modification for\nHouse and by failing to call medical experts at trial. We first\naddress counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s closing\nargument. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals held counsel’s\nfailure to object to the prosecutor’s statement was not preju‐\ndicial. The state appellate court noted House had credibility\nissues, citing his criminal history, and counsel diminished the\nimpact of the State’s statement by noting the availability of a\n\f26 No. 18‐1954\n\nsentence modification in the future. We conclude that this is\nnot an unreasonable conclusion in light of the facts.\n House had a host of credibility problems, and the jury was\naware of these problems. At the time of trial, House was in jail\nand had nine or ten prior convictions. He was known as a jail‐\nhouse lawyer, snitch, and scam artist. Moreover, as trial coun‐\nsel demonstrated through the jailhouse phone calls, House\nwas willing to reveal information he obtained while in prison\nto law enforcement for his own benefit and then later lie un‐\nder oath about doing just that. Whether House received a ben‐\nefit for his testimony at Felton’s trial did not diminish House’s\nsignificant credibility problems. Any objection to the prosecu‐\ntor’s non‐evidentiary statement in closing argument rebuttal\nwould not have altered House’s testimony about Felton’s con‐\nfession. The jury also heard Felton’s counsel’s closing argu‐\nment where she asserted that House did not receive any ben‐\nefit yet. Therefore, even if counsel erred by not objecting to the\nprosecutor’s closing argument rebuttal statement, there was\nnot a substantial likelihood of a different result had counsel\nobjected, Strickland, 466 U.S. at 696, and we conclude the Wis‐\nconsin Court of Appeals was not unreasonable in concluding\nthat Felton was not prejudiced by counsel’s failure to object,\ncf. Baer v. Neal, 879 F.3d 769, 788 (7th Cir. 2018) (When review‐\ning a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, “we are to consider\nthe prosecutorʹs conduct not in isolation, but in the context of\nthe trial as a whole, to determine if such conduct was so in‐\nflammatory and prejudicial to the defendant … as to deprive\nhim of a fair trial.”) (internal quotations and citations omit‐\nted).\n Regarding counsel’s other error, Felton argues having ex‐\nperts to challenge the State’s medical evidence “was essential\n\fNo. 18‐1954 27\n\nto the defense because Felton said J.J. accidentally slipped and\nfell in the bathtub. If experts could show the accident as a\nplausible cause of death, the jury could harbor reasonable\ndoubt.” In support of his claim of prejudice, Felton also as‐\nserts that his experts made two key points: first, there was no\nmedical evidence to support a diagnosis of shaking, and sec‐\nond, his experts supported his claim that J.J.’s injuries were\nthe result of a relatively minor fall.4\n Taking the second point first, Felton’s medical expert tes‐\ntimony does not support the theory that J.J.’s bathtub slip and\nfall caused his death. Those experts testified that J.J.’s injuries\nwere consistent with a fall from two to four feet or striking\nsomething with the force of a fall from two to four feet. J.J.\nwas 24.5 inches tall. Even if J.J. slid from the seated position\nand hit his head in the tub, such a fall would only have been\nfrom about one foot and would not have been a free fall, but,\nrather, a slide from the seated position. Therefore, there is not\na reasonable probability that Felton would not have been con‐\nvicted because the habeas medical testimony would not have\nsupported the claim that J.J.’s death was caused by his bath‐\ntub fall.\n Furthermore, both the trial and habeas medical experts\nagreed that J.J. was not mobile at the time of his death, and\nthere was no evidence at trial that someone fell while holding\nJ.J. To the extent that Felton’s theory was that someone else\n\n\n 4 While he argued before the district court that his post‐trial experts\nrebutted the State’s medical expert testimony regarding when J.J.’s inju‐\nries were incurred, Felton concedes on appeal that neither sides’ experts\ncould narrow the timing of the injuries to one particular suspect.\n\f28 No. 18‐1954\n\nhurt J.J. at the playground, trial counsel elicited testimony\nfrom Dr. Vardis that, hypothetically, J.J.’s injuries could have\nbeen the result of a playground fall. And the jury heard testi‐\nmony about Sasha bumping J.J.’s head on the door frame and\nmedical testimony from Dr. Taylor that such a bump on the\nleft side of the head would not have caused J.J.’s injuries. Sim‐\nilarly, Dr. Barnes testified at the habeas hearing that J.J.’s in‐\njuries were not the result of an accidental bump to his head.\n Regarding shaking, it is true that two of the State’s experts\ntestified at trial that J.J. had been shaken, and according to\nDr. Vardis, shaken severely, and that Felton’s habeas experts\nrebutted that testimony citing the absence of a neck injury.\nShaking, however, was not the only evidence the jury heard\nabout the cause of death. Dr. Witeck testified that the cause of\nJ.J.’s death was “head injuries due to blunt force trauma.” And\neven Dr. Vardis testified that J.J. had been slammed into a\nhard object, which is consistent with the testimony of Dr.\nBarnes that even if J.J. had been shaken, his injuries were from\nsome sort of impact and would not have been from shaking\nalone. In light of this evidence, the Wisconsin Court of Ap‐\npeals was not unreasonable in its conclusion that “we are not\nconvinced that the differences in expert medical testimony\nwere significant enough to undermine our confidence in the\noutcome or prevent the real controversy from being tried”.5\n\n 5To the extent that Felton’s argument that the state appellate court\nunreasonably applied Strickland’s prejudice standard to the facts is also an\nargument that the state appellate court’s decision is “based on an unrea‐\nsonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the\nstate court proceeding,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), that argument is unavailing.\nThe Wisconsin Court of Appeals was critical that Felton’s citations did not\nsupport particular assertions, were only partially true, or were completely\nabsent in support of certain claims. Because Felton’s brief was required to\n\fNo. 18‐1954 29\n\n In support of his claim of prejudice, Felton further argues\nthat House’s testimony corroborated the State’s medical testi‐\nmony and, in turn, the State’s medical testimony corroborated\nHouse’s testimony. House’s testimony, however, did not cor‐\nroborate the medical evidence in the way Felton asserts in his\nbrief. Without citation to the record, Felton repeatedly states\nthat House testified that Felton confessed to shaking and\nslamming J.J. At trial, though, House never testified about\nshaking, but rather testified that Felton “swung [the baby]\ninto the bathroom door.” Further, the habeas medical testi‐\nmony did not undermine House’s testimony, and, in fact, was\nsupported in part by Dr. Plunkett’s testimony that J.J. could\nhave been struck with the same force as a three to four foot\nfall. Even if the habeas medical experts had testified at trial\nand Felton’s counsel had objected to the prosecutor’s closing\nargument, it was not reasonably likely the jury’s decision\nwould have been different. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 696.\n Finally, as the Wisconsin Court of Appeals noted, counsel\npresented evidence that others had “custody of [J.J.] on the\nday he was admitted to the hospital,” and these alleged errors\ndid not affect that evidence. Similarly, the unfavorable trial\ntestimony about Felton was unaffected by these alleged er‐\nrors. Id. (noting that some errors will not affect some of the\nfactual findings). Felton’s failure to tell anyone about J.J.’s slip\n\ncontain “a statement of facts relevant to the issues presented for review,\nwith appropriate references to the record,” Wis. Stat. 809.19(1)(d) and\n“[j]udges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in the record,” Gross\nv. Town of Cicero, 619 F.3d 697, 702 (7th Cir. 2010), the Wisconsin Court of\nAppeals’s conclusion about a lack of prejudice was not unreasonable. See\ngenerally United States v. Lewis, 594 F.3d 1270, 1275 (10th Cir. 2010) (“[I]t is\nnot this court’s duty to scour without guidance a voluminous record for\nevidence supporting the government’s theory.”).\n\f30 No. 18‐1954\n\nin the bathtub, including Sasha when she phoned from work\nor the hospital physicians, his delay in telling the police J.J.\nfell in the tub, testimony that he was goofing around while his\nson was in the NICU suffering severe brain trauma, testimony\nthat Felton stated at the hospital that he did not want to go to\njail, testimony that he had limited experience caring for J.J. by\nhimself, and testimony he compelled his cellmate to sign a re‐\nquest form he had written in an attempt presumably to un‐\ndermine House were all unaffected by the errors that Felton\nnow alleges. And as we discussed above, the habeas medical\ntestimony would not have supported Felton’s claim about the\ncause of J.J.’s injury. Accordingly, the Wisconsin Court of Ap‐\npeals did not unreasonably conclude that Felton was not prej‐\nudiced by counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s state‐\nment and failure to call medical experts.\n III.\n We AFFIRM the denial of Felton’s petition for a writ of\nhabeas corpus.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Jeremiah FELTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Bryan BARTOW, Respondent-Appellee.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-06-18\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18‐1954\\nJEREMIAH FELTON,\\n Petitioner‐Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nBRYAN BARTOW,\\n Respondent‐Appellee.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Eastern District of Wisconsin.\\n No. 14‐cv‐965 — Nancy Joseph, Magistrate Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED FEBRUARY 22, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 18, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before RIPPLE, MANION, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\\n MANION, Circuit Judge. A jury convicted Jeremiah Felton of\\nfirst degree intentional homicide in Wisconsin state court for\\nthe death of his three‐month‐old son, Jeremiah Felton Jr. (J.J.).\\nThe jury heard testimony about the days leading up to J.J.’s\\ndeath, such as those who cared for and had contact with him,\\nincluding Felton. The jury also heard about Felton’s conver‐\\nsations with police, whom he told that J.J. had slipped and hit\\nhis head in the bathtub, and with fellow jail inmate, Douglas\\n\\f2 No. 18‐1954\\n\\nHouse, who testified that Felton said he had swung J.J. into a\\nbathroom door. J.J.’s treating physicians and the medical ex‐\\naminer also testified about J.J.’s injuries and cause of death,\\nwhich two of the physicians stated, in part, was due to shak‐\\ning. The medical examiner concluded that blunt force trauma\\nwas the cause of death. The jury found Felton guilty.\\n Felton sought post‐conviction relief in the Wisconsin state\\ncourt based on ineffective assistance of counsel. In particular,\\nFelton cited his attorney’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s\\nstatement during closing argument that House could not re‐\\nceive a sentence modification for his testimony in Felton’s trial\\nand failure to secure medical expert testimony to rebut the\\nState’s witnesses. At the post‐conviction hearing, Felton’s\\ncounsel testified as well as three medical experts who con‐\\ncluded J.J. had not been shaken and J.J.’s injuries were con‐\\nsistent with a fall of two to four feet. The state trial court de‐\\nnied Felton’s petition, and the Wisconsin Court of Appeals af‐\\nfirmed the denial. The Wisconsin Supreme Court summarily\\ndenied Felton’s petition for review. Felton sought a writ of ha‐\\nbeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the district court. The\\ndistrict court denied Felton’s petition, and Felton now appeals\\nto this court. Because the decision of the Wisconsin Court of\\nAppeals was not unreasonable, Felton’s petition is denied.\\n I.\\nA. Criminal Trial1\\n J.J. Felton was born on February 16, 2008. During his short\\nlife, J.J. lived with his mother, Sasha Fulton, and his father,\\n\\n\\n 1Unless otherwise noted, the facts are drawn from the testimony and\\nother evidence at Felton’s criminal jury trial.\\n\\fNo. 18‐1954 3\\n\\nJeremiah Felton, would sometimes stay with them. Sasha and\\nFelton were not married. They had renewed their relationship\\nin June 2008, and Felton moved with Sasha and J.J. to a new\\napartment the weekend before J.J. died. On Sunday, June 1,\\n2008, J.J. spent the day at the park with various family mem‐\\nbers, including his parents. Sasha took J.J. home around sup‐\\npertime while Felton stayed out until after midnight. That\\nnight, Felton stayed with Sasha and J.J. at the new apartment.\\nSasha’s cousin, Bryiana Fulton, and her baby also stayed there\\nthat night.\\n 1. The Day at the Apartment\\n The next morning, while Felton slept, Sasha fed and\\nplayed with J.J. before going to work shortly before 9 a.m. Bry‐\\niana sometimes cared for J.J., but that day, Sasha told her to\\nleave him with Felton. It was the first time Sasha left J.J. in\\nFelton’s care for the day while she was at work.\\n While Felton was home with J.J., different family members\\ncame in and out of the apartment throughout the day. Bryiana\\nleft the apartment sometime after 9 a.m. When she returned\\naround noon, Felton and J.J. were there along with Byrian Ful‐\\nton (Bryiana’s brother) and Casey Fulton (Sasha’s brother).\\nJ.J. seemed to be acting normally at that time. Bryiana gave\\nhim a bottle before leaving around 12:30 p.m. Casey and Byr‐\\nian left at the same time, and Felton remained in the apart‐\\nment with J.J. Sasha called Felton from work about 2:30 or\\n3 p.m., and he told her that J.J. had been sleeping all day.\\n Sasha’s fifteen‐year‐old cousin, Anthony Hendrix, came\\nby the apartment sometime after his school let out for the day\\nat 2:30 p.m. There he found Felton alone in the apartment with\\nJ.J., who was sleeping on the couch while Felton was getting\\n\\f4 No. 18‐1954\\n\\nout of the shower. Hendrix testified that J.J. cried multiple\\ntimes while he was there, and that both he and Felton picked\\nhim up. Hendrix put J.J. down in his crib and patted his back.\\nJ.J. stopped crying, and Hendrix left soon after.\\n When Sasha returned home from work around 5:25 p.m.,\\nshe checked on J.J., who was sleeping. She let him sleep; J.J.\\nwas a fussy baby, and Sasha did not want to disturb him. Bry‐\\niana came back around the same time. Felton asked Sasha to\\ndrive him to his friend’s graduation. After eating a sandwich,\\nSasha borrowed Bryiana’s car to drive Felton to the gradua‐\\ntion ceremony and returned about a half hour to forty\\nminutes later. While Sasha and Felton were gone, Bryiana\\nstayed at Sasha’s apartment with her son and J.J. When Sasha\\nreturned, she did not check on J.J. right away, but let him sleep\\nand began cleaning the kitchen and bathroom. About fifteen\\nminutes later, she heard J.J. make a funny noise and went to\\ncheck on him. There she found J.J. with one eye open and one\\neye shut. Sasha cried out that something was wrong. Bryiana\\nthought that Sasha was overreacting until she saw J.J. She then\\ntold Sasha to call 911 while she attempted to revive J.J.\\n 2. At the Hospital\\n J.J. was taken by ambulance to St. Vincent Hospital in\\nGreen Bay around 7:30 p.m. Dr. John Taylor, pediatric critical\\ncare physician, first saw J.J. shortly after he arrived at the hos‐\\npital. Dr. Taylor intubated J.J. and ordered x‐rays and a CT\\nscan. The CT scan revealed J.J. had a skull fracture just above\\nand slightly behind his right ear, specifically his right parietal\\nbone, bleeding under his skull and in his brain, and retinal\\nhemorrhages. Dr. Taylor told Sasha and Felton he was con‐\\ncerned someone had hurt J.J. because there was no record of\\na car accident or someone falling or tripping down the stairs\\n\\fNo. 18‐1954 5\\n\\nwith their son, and J.J. was not yet rolling or moving by him‐\\nself. Sasha told Dr. Taylor that the day before while she had\\nbeen carrying J.J. in her left arm, J.J. bumped his head as she\\nwalked through the door. Felton did not give any explanation\\nto Dr. Taylor.\\n A number of family members came to the hospital that\\nnight. Some of them played in the halls, including Felton, who\\npushed Casey around in a wheelchair. Hospital staff asked\\nthem to leave because they were too noisy and disruptive. Fel‐\\nton and Sasha were allowed to stay, and they fell asleep in the\\nfamily waiting room.\\n That same night, the hospital or Brown County Human\\nServices contacted the police about J.J.’s serious injuries and\\nthe lack of explanation for them. Detective Robert Haglund\\nand Detective Walter Wickman of the Green Bay Police De‐\\npartment arrived at the hospital around 3 a.m. on Tuesday,\\nJune 3. Haglund woke Felton and Sasha. He interviewed\\nSasha with a human services representative present, and\\nWickman interviewed Felton in a separate room. There Felton\\ntold Wickman that he did not know what could have hap‐\\npened because J.J. was with him or people they knew. He told\\nWickman about Sasha bumping J.J.’s head into the door, but\\nprovided no other explanation about how J.J. might have sus‐\\ntained his injuries. After interviewing Sasha, Haglund joined\\nWickman and Felton and asked Felton what had happened.\\nAfter confirming Felton told him the same thing he had just\\ntold Wickman, Haglund and Wickman left the hospital.\\n Haglund returned to the hospital the next day and spoke\\nwith various family members, including Bryiana and Hen‐\\ndrix, asking them what might have happened to J.J. He\\nlearned about the move to the new apartment on Friday and\\n\\f6 No. 18‐1954\\n\\nSaturday and the day at the park on Sunday. At the end of his\\ninterviews, Haglund asked the family, including Felton,\\nSasha, and Bryiana, to be quiet because they were being noisy\\nplaying up and down the halls. Haglund also told them he\\nbelieved one of the family members was responsible for J.J.’s\\ninjuries and his prime suspects were Felton, Bryiana, and\\nSasha because they had been alone with J.J. on Monday. Hag‐\\nlund also advised Felton to check in with his probation officer\\nas he was required to do if he spoke with law enforcement.\\n While at the hospital, Felton stated more than once, “I just\\ndon’t want to go to jail.” In one instance, Bryiana testified Fel‐\\nton expressed frustration over what he thought was a lack of\\ninformation from doctors, and he did not want to hit the doc‐\\ntor and go to jail.\\n 3. J.J.’s Death and Felton’s Conversation with Police and\\n Fellow Inmate\\n J.J.’s condition worsened, and he died from his injuries on\\nJune 5th. Shortly after his son’s death, Felton went to the\\nBrown County Jail on a probation hold. On June 9, 2008, Fel‐\\nton asked to talk with police and spoke with Haglund. Felton\\ngave Haglund a statement, which Haglund typed and Felton\\nread and signed. In that statement, Felton recounted that\\naround 2 p.m. on the day J.J. was rushed to the hospital, “I got\\nin the bathtub with my baby and started giving him a bath.\\nThere was only two inches of water. He was sitting between\\nmy legs and his butt slipped forward and his head came back‐\\nwards and his head hit the bottom of the tub between my legs.\\nHis right ear went in the water, but his face didn’t go under\\nthe water. He started crying. I wiped him off, got him dressed,\\nand gave him a bottle, patted him to sleep while he was lying\\non the couch.” Felton told Haglund he felt it in his legs when\\n\\fNo. 18‐1954 7\\n\\nJ.J. hit the bottom of the tub and J.J. hit the tub “kind of hard.”\\nFelton said he was going to tell Haglund about this in the hos‐\\npital, but Haglund made him nervous.\\n Haglund spoke again with Felton on June 12th telling him\\nthe doctors said that the slip in the tub could not have caused\\nJ.J.’s injuries. When Haglund left the interview room, Felton\\nstood by the door trying to listen to what was being said out‐\\nside the room, which Haglund stated witnesses typically do\\nnot do. After speaking with Felton on June 12th, Haglund sent\\nthe case file over to the District Attorney’s Office recommend‐\\ning Felton be charged with first degree intentional homicide\\nfor J.J.’s death. On June 13, 2008, the Green Bay Police Depart‐\\nment issued a press release about its request and stated J.J.\\nhad suffered a skull fracture from blunt force trauma. The\\npress release did not say where the fracture was located on\\nthe skull.\\n Meanwhile, Douglas House, one of Felton’s fellow in‐\\nmates at the Brown County Jail, sent police a request form,\\notherwise known as a “kite,” dated June 13, 2008. House had\\nnine to ten prior convictions and had a reputation as both a\\njailhouse lawyer and a snitch. House’s kite stated, “I have con‐\\nclusive evidence to convict Jeremiah Felton, Sr. in the death of\\nhis infant son, Junior. That was caused by right side trauma\\nto head behind right ear. Will only come out if called out as\\nan attorney visit.”\\n Haglund spoke with House on June 16th. (It was the not\\nthe first time Haglund and House spoke with one another;\\nthey had previously talked about other cases.) House told\\nHaglund that when Felton approached him, Felton had not\\nyet been charged with J.J.’s death, and they discussed the time\\nconstraints for Felton’s probation hold. After that, Felton told\\n\\f8 No. 18‐1954\\n\\nhim about J.J. House told Haglund that Felton had told him\\nthat J.J. was getting on his nerves, so he swung J.J. into the\\nbathroom door hitting the right side of J.J.’s head behind his\\near. House also asked Haglund to look into whether the police\\nwere harassing his children.\\n House spoke again with Haglund on June 23rd. Haglund\\ntold House that the police were watching another house near\\nhis children. House, in turn, told Haglund that Felton told\\nhim that the police questioned him about J.J. and he planned\\nto blame it on his girlfriend’s sister. In addition to telling Hag‐\\nlund about Felton, House asked Haglund if he could look into\\npolice harassing his son and daughter. Haglund checked into\\nthis and later told House that the police were not watching his\\nkids, but were watching a nearby house.\\n 4. Other Criminal Trial Testimony\\n Felton was charged with first degree intentional homicide\\nin J.J.’s death, and the case proceeded to trial. Several wit‐\\nnesses, including Sasha and Felton’s mother, testified that J.J.\\nwas a fussy baby. On one occasion, Bryiana “popped” J.J. and\\nher son on their diapers when they were “both a little crabby.”\\nSasha testified that she did not like that Bryiana spanked J.J.,\\nbut she was very close with her cousin and trusted her to care\\nfor J.J. As for Felton, Sasha and others testified that he was\\ngood with his children and nieces and nephews, and they also\\ntestified that if J.J. got fussy, Felton would pass J.J. to someone\\nelse or put him in his car seat until he stopped crying.\\n House testified at trial:\\n A. Well, he [Felton] said that he had been home, I be‐\\n lieve he said he was home with his girlfriend’s sister,\\n or wife’s sister, one or the other, and that he was giving\\n\\fNo. 18‐1954 9\\n\\n the baby a bath, and the baby slipped. That the baby\\n had either gotten water in his eyes or mouth and\\n started crying, and he tried for a long period of time to\\n quiet the baby down, but that didn’t happen.\\n Q. What else did he continue to tell you what hap‐\\n pened?\\n A. He had gotten frustrated and was holding the baby,\\n and then swung the baby into the bathroom door. The\\n baby, Jeremiah, hit his head on the right side, and he\\n pointed to the left ‐ ‐ or the right side behind his ear of\\n where the baby hit his head.\\n Q. I was going to ask, how do you know it was the right\\n side?\\n A. Well, as he was telling me, he made the motion, and\\n he said he was holding the baby, swung the baby, and\\n the baby hit his head, and I said where, and he said\\n right here, and he pointed right behind his head.\\n …\\n Q. Did he say anything else to you after ‐ ‐\\n A. He did. You know, he made it sound like he was\\n going to put the blame on the ‐ ‐ the girlfriend’s sister,\\n and he said he ‐ ‐ he also said you know, for a substan‐\\n tial amount of time that baby shut up so he knew some‐\\n thing was wrong.\\n House found Felton’s demeanor odd because “it was like\\nthere was no concern whatsoever for the baby.” House also\\ntold the jury about Felton’s confession and identified Felton\\nin the courtroom. He testified that after Felton was charged,\\n\\f10 No. 18‐1954\\n\\nFelton approached House about the kite and asked why\\nHouse snitched on him.\\n On cross‐examination, House denied ever talking with his\\nattorney about getting anything in return for information he\\nhad about Felton. Felton’s counsel impeached House by play‐\\ning two recorded telephone conversations that House had\\nwhile in the Brown County Jail. The first call was between\\nHouse and his attorney. During that call, House’s attorney\\ntold him she had spoken with Haglund who said he was un‐\\nsure he could do anything for House unless House testified in\\nFelton’s case. House’s attorney also discussed information\\nHouse had about another homicide. The second call was be‐\\ntween House and one of his daughters. House’s daughter told\\nhim that Haglund had said House needed to testify “against\\n[sic] for the baby or something.” On redirect, House testified\\nhis case was over and he did not receive any consideration in\\nhis case for his testimony in Felton’s trial.\\n Felton called his Brown County Jail cellmate, Ishtayopi\\nJones, to testify. Jones came to the jail on June 14th. He was\\nfamiliar with House because they had met previously, though\\nhe tried to stay away from House because his family warned\\nhim that House was a “con artist.” Jones stated House ex‐\\npressed concern to him when he learned that Jones was room‐\\ning with Felton, though House did not tell Jones why. Jones\\nsaid he learned about Felton’s case from the television. Jones\\nstated he did talk with Felton about House and what a “big\\ntroublemaker” and “scam artist” he was.\\n On cross‐examination, the prosecutor asked Jones about a\\nkite he signed and dated October 8, 2008. The kite stated, in\\npart, “I did not and will not try and tell on Jeremiah Felton.”\\nWhen asked at trial, “What’s there to tell on Jeremiah Felton,”\\n\\fNo. 18‐1954 11\\n\\nJones responded, “Nothing, I guess.” The prosecutor further\\nquestioned Jones about the kite, and Jones’s testimony made\\nit clear that he knew nothing about Felton’s case from Felton\\nor House and that Felton, not Jones, wrote the kite. When\\nasked why he signed the request form, Jones responded,\\n“‘Cause [Felton] looked pretty mad at me, then I just told him\\nI’d sign it and that if he needs me to testify, I’ll do that for\\nhim.” Jones also testified he told Haglund that Felton had\\nnever talked with Felton about his case and that House “is just\\nlying and making stuff up to get himself out of what situation\\nhe’s in right now.”\\n 5. Medical Testimony\\n Also at trial, the State called three physicians, two of J.J.’s\\ntreating physicians and the medical examiner, to present tes‐\\ntimony about J.J.’s injuries and cause of death. Dr. John Tay‐\\nlor, who first treated J.J. upon his arrival at the hospital, testi‐\\nfied that both J.J.’s fracture and retinal hemorrhaging were the\\nresult of a significant amount of force, such as a car accident.\\nIn J.J.’s case, Dr. Taylor suspected “most likely that this was a\\nresult of significant shaking.” Dr. Taylor stated that a bump\\nlike Sasha bumping J.J.’s head in the doorway would not ac‐\\ncount for J.J.’s injuries because the bump was on J.J.’s left side,\\nthe force would have been insufficient, and J.J. was eating,\\nsleeping, awakening, and playing in an age‐appropriate way\\nafter that. He also testified that it is difficult to establish a time\\nframe for when the injuries were sustained. According to\\nDr. Taylor, it could be at the longest a day, but he believed it\\nwas within an hour or two of the injuries presenting them‐\\nselves.\\n A couple hypotheticals were posed to Dr. Taylor while he\\nwas testifying. The prosecutor asked him about a child J.J.’s\\n\\f12 No. 18‐1954\\n\\nsize slipping in the bathtub between someone else’s legs and\\nhitting his head. Dr. Taylor responded that the distance of the\\nfall would not have caused the skull fracture, hemorrhages,\\nand bruising in the back of the eye. He stated that J.J.’s injuries\\nwere more consistent with his head being swung into a door\\nthan falling in a bathtub. Felton’s counsel asked whether, hy‐\\npothetically, those injuries could have resulted from someone\\nfalling with J.J. at the playground. Dr. Taylor responded that\\nit was “[e]xtraordinarily unlikely, but … there was a\\nminiscule possibility.”\\n Another of J.J.’s treating physicians, Dr. Ralph Vardis, also\\ntestified. He concluded that J.J.’s injuries were consistent with\\nbeing violently shaken and slammed into a hard surface. On\\ncross‐examination, Dr. Vardis stated that the injuries could\\nhave been caused by a fifteen‐year‐old so long as it was vio‐\\nlent and intentional. Dr. Vardis testified about the progression\\nof J.J.’s symptoms, namely the brain swelling, and concluded\\nthat J.J. was so severely shaken that his brain completely died.\\nHe said J.J.’s brain bleeding and skull fracture were not likely\\ncaused by a short fall, but rather “[t]he only way you can get\\nthe kind of findings that we saw is if the height was one to\\ntwo stories from the top of a building.” According to Dr. Var‐\\ndis, some of J.J.’s bleeding was due to the skull fracture and\\nsome of the bleeding was due to the shaking. He acknowl‐\\nedged on cross‐examination that there was a disagreement\\nbetween his opinion regarding J.J.’s cause of death, i.e. shaken\\nbaby syndrome, and the medical examiner’s conclusion in the\\nautopsy report, i.e. head injuries due to blunt force trauma.\\nAs for timing, Dr. Vardis noted that there is no way to tell\\nwhen the injuries occurred. He stated that the injury could not\\nhave happened on Sunday, but it could have happened be‐\\ntween five minutes to twelve hours from when the symptoms\\n\\fNo. 18‐1954 13\\n\\nwere evident. He also expected the same physical findings if\\nit had taken place at 1 p.m. or 5 p.m. the day J.J. came to the\\nhospital.\\n The third doctor to testify at trial was Dr. Mark Witeck. Dr.\\nWiteck, a forensic pathologist, served as the medical examiner\\nfor Brown County. He performed the autopsy on J.J. Based on\\nhis examination, Dr. Witeck concluded that J.J. died of “cra‐\\nnial cerebral trauma, in other words, head injuries due to\\nblunt force trauma.” Dr. Witeck testified that J.J. was just un‐\\nder 15 pounds and was 24.5 inches long, had no external inju‐\\nries, including bruises, and his anterior fontanel, commonly\\nreferred to as the soft spot in the front of the head, was bulg‐\\ning outward. This was consistent with brain swelling, and the\\nseverity and global nature of the swelling was consistent with\\na head injury. J.J. had fractures on the right side and front base\\nof his skull in “what’s called the orbital plate, that’s the little\\nbone plate that’s just above the eye.” There was also a blood\\nclot and bleeding on the surface of the right side of the brain.\\nDr. Witeck stated “that requires a lot of trauma to the head to\\nget that kind of bleeding.” Dr. Witeck testified J.J.’s brain\\nbleeding was consistent with the fracture. While he stated eye\\nhemorrhages are often seen in children who are shaken, he\\ndid not opine whether J.J. had been shaken.\\n According to Dr. Witeck, the fracture was consistent with\\nhaving been caused by blunt force trauma. This means J.J.’s\\nhead was hit with something or against something, though\\nthere was no way to know whether it was a single blow or\\nmultiple blows. He also said J.J.’s injuries were consistent\\nwith being swung into an object with significant force.\\nDr. Witeck testified J.J.’s fractures were not consistent with a\\nbaby standing and falling to the floor, but were consistent\\n\\f14 No. 18‐1954\\n\\nwith a fall only from a large height, like off of a one‐ or two‐\\nstory building. When asked whether a child of 24.5 inches tall\\nsitting in a bathtub, slipping, and hitting his head on the bath‐\\ntub could cause the injuries that he saw, Dr. Witeck re‐\\nsponded, “Not at all.” On cross‐examination, Dr. Witeck tes‐\\ntified a premature birth could play a part in a child’s suscep‐\\ntibility to fracture.\\n Felton did not call any medical experts to testify on his be‐\\nhalf. (As discussed below, his attorney consulted with her\\nphysician husband and a medical student, but did not call ei‐\\nther as witnesses at trial.) Other than the testimony elicited\\nfrom the State’s medical experts on cross‐examination, Felton\\ndid not present any medical evidence at trial.\\n 6. Jury Instructions, Closing Arguments, and Verdict\\n After the close of evidence, the trial judge instructed the\\njury. In part, the judge instructed, “Consider only the evi‐\\ndence received during this trial as given to you by these in‐\\nstructions, and from these alone, guided by your soundest\\nreason and best judgment, reach your verdict.” The judge also\\ninstructed, “Remarks of the attorneys are not evidence. If the\\nremarks suggested certain facts not in evidence, disregard the\\nsuggestion. In a few moments, you will hear the closing argu‐\\nments of the attorneys. Consider carefully the closing argu‐\\nments of the attorneys, but their arguments and conclusions\\nand opinions are not evidence. Draw your own conclusions\\nfrom the evidence and decide upon your verdict according to\\nthe evidence and the instructions given you by the court.” Af‐\\nter instructions, the prosecutor and Felton’s counsel pre‐\\nsented their closing arguments to the jury.\\n\\fNo. 18‐1954 15\\n\\n During closing arguments, the prosecutor argued in part:\\n What House is testifying has to be the truth … what\\n did he get for testifying on October 21st or 22nd, 2009?\\n The answer is nothing. Absolutely nothing. Is there a\\n case pending against him? No. Long gone. Over. Done\\n with. There’s nothing that House was going to gain by\\n testifying. Because his case was over. It was done. Per‐\\n haps, just maybe, perhaps, he testifies because he was\\n subpoenaed by the state and maybe, even somebody,\\n even a criminal like Doug House, can do the right thing\\n once in a while.\\n In response, Felton’s counsel stated:\\n And by the way, I am going to set the record straight.\\n State said, well, his case is settled. He didn’t get any\\n concessions. Cooperation with law enforcement, that\\n matter can be reopened any time for a sentence modi‐\\n fication. So the fact that he hasn’t received any benefit\\n yet, it might be ‘cause we had to wait for this case to go\\n forward. Doesn’t mean he’s not getting it. It means he\\n hasn’t gotten it yet.\\n And the prosecutor responded in the State’s rebuttal:\\n Mr. House has absolutely nothing to gain here. He was\\n honest with you. His case is closed. He can’t receive\\n anything for his testimony at this point. … [H]e won’t\\n gain anything, no advantages from the state. Just a\\n lightening of his conscience. … And he’s received no\\n consideration for this. His case is closed. Once again,\\n it’s done.\\n Felton’s counsel did not object to this latter statement.\\n(Several months later, House received a sentence reduction\\n\\f16 No. 18‐1954\\n\\nfor his testimony at Felton’s trial, though the State remained\\nsilent on that motion.) After deliberating for about four hours,\\nthe jury found Felton guilty of first degree intentional homi‐\\ncide. Felton was sentenced to life imprisonment.\\nB. Post‐conviction Proceedings\\n Felton filed a post‐conviction motion asserting ineffective\\nassistance of counsel based on two alleged errors. First, he ar‐\\ngued that his attorney erred by not securing medical experts\\nto rebut the State’s medical testimony at trial. Second, Felton\\nargued his attorney erred by not objecting to the prosecutor’s\\nclosing argument rebuttal statement that House would re‐\\nceive no benefit from his testimony. 2\\n 1. Felton’s Counsel\\n The state trial court conducted a hearing on Felton’s mo‐\\ntion. There Felton’s trial counsel testified. Felton was first rep‐\\nresented by a public defender, and counsel began to represent\\nFelton after he and his family privately retained her. While\\nthe original agreement was that she would receive $15,000 to\\ntake the case through trial, she essentially represented Felton\\npro‐bono receiving only $750 in payments. Despite a lack of\\ncompensation, counsel continued to represent Felton because\\nshe felt strongly about his case. Financial constraints, though,\\nimpacted her decision about medical experts. Counsel testi‐\\nfied that she did not hire medical experts because of the ex‐\\npense (the two out‐of‐state experts she contacted both wanted\\na minimum $2,500 retainer, and she never sought funding\\n\\n 2Felton also invoked the state trial court’s discretionary power to\\ngrant him post‐conviction relief in the interest of justice asserting the jury\\ndid not have the opportunity to hear the medical testimony and was mis‐\\nled by the prosecutor’s closing argument statements about House.\\n\\fNo. 18‐1954 17\\n\\nthrough the state public defender’s office). Counsel also\\nstated that she did not think that “hired guns” would play\\nwell to a Green Bay jury. Instead, she researched medical lit‐\\nerature and consulted her husband, a general internist who\\nspecialized in endocrinology, and a medical student, who was\\nworking for her husband, about the case. The medical student\\nhad relationships with physicians at Milwaukee Children’s\\nHospital and presented J.J.’s file to one of the doctors there.\\nThat doctor said that the race of the family was the first thing\\nat which he would look. This raised red flags for counsel, and\\nshe did not pursue an evaluation of the case from that doctor.\\nFinally, when asked, counsel testified she was aware of State\\nv. Edmunds, 746 N.W.2d 590 (Wis. 2008), in which the Wiscon‐\\nsin Supreme Court granted a new trial to a defendant based\\non newly discovered evidence rebutting the shaken baby syn‐\\ndrome theory. Counsel stated she did not contact any of the\\nEdmunds experts.\\n Regarding House, counsel said she repeatedly argued to\\nthe jury why it should not believe House. She also noted she\\nworked hard to discredit Detective Haglund, including ques‐\\ntioning him about any concessions for House, such as check‐\\ning on the surveillance of his daughter. She also explored al‐\\nternate avenues from which House could have learned about\\nthe case, such as the Green Bay Police Department press re‐\\nlease. She stated she made the strategic decision not to object\\nto the prosecutor’s closing argument rebuttal statement about\\nHouse because she concluded it was better in the face of the\\njury not to object. Moreover, counsel noted that she “objected\\nby giving a narration of my objection, rather than saying, ob‐\\njection.” In other words, she described to the jury House\\ncould be entitled to a sentence modification even if he had not\\nreceived one yet.\\n\\f18 No. 18‐1954\\n\\n 2. Post‐Trial Medical Experts\\n Felton also called three medical experts to testify at his\\npost‐conviction hearing. These physicians were critical of the\\nState’s medical experts in two key respects: they concluded\\nJ.J.’s injuries were not from shaking and his injuries could\\nhave been the result of a short fall.\\n The first doctor to testify was Dr. Patrick Barnes, a pediat‐\\nric radiologist and neuroradiologist from Stanford University\\nSchool of Medicine. Dr. Barnes disagreed with the State’s ex‐\\nperts that J.J. had been shaken. He noted that J.J. would have\\nsuffered a neck injury if he had been shaken. Moreover,\\nDr. Barnes stated that even if J.J. had been shaken, his injuries\\nwould have resulted from some sort of impact and not shak‐\\ning alone. He also strongly disagreed with the State’s experts\\nabout J.J.’s injuries being equivalent to those of a multi‐story\\nfall. Rather, Dr. Barnes testified that J.J.’s fracture was a classic\\nexample of a fall between two and three feet, such as a child\\nfalling while being held by a standing adult. He stated,\\nthough, J.J.’s fracture and other injuries were less likely a re‐\\nsult of a short fall, estimating a five percent chance. Dr. Barnes\\nalso testified that J.J.’s skull fracture “is what we call a linear\\nskull fracture. It’s actually a very common type of traumatic\\ninjury to an infant’s skull due to accidental injury scenarios,\\nlike dropping the baby to the floor or hitting the baby’s head\\nagainst something, but it still doesn’t tell us if it was inten‐\\ntional or accidental.” Dr. Barnes stated it is uncommon for a\\nchild to die from a three or four foot fall. While a bump could\\ncause a simple skull fracture, because of J.J.’s other injuries,\\nnamely the brain swelling and bleeding, something other\\nthan a bump to the head or banging his head against the wall\\nhappened according to Dr. Barnes. Regarding the bleeding\\n\\fNo. 18‐1954 19\\n\\nbetween J.J.’s brain and skull, Dr. Barnes testified that it has\\nbeen reported to be connected with either a lack of oxygen or\\nblood flow to the baby’s brain or where there is malignant\\nbrain swelling from either accidental or non‐accidental\\ncauses. Dr. Barnes went on to testify that J.J. had lung abnor‐\\nmalities suggestive of an improper intubation that could have\\ninterfered with the oxygen to his brain.\\n The second physician, Dr. Joseph Scheller, staff child neu‐\\nrologist at Children’s National Medical Center in Washington,\\nD.C., also disagreed with the State’s experts that J.J. had been\\nshaken and noted the absence of a neck injury. He said J.J. had\\na skull fracture, and “[i]t’s physically impossible to create a\\nskull fracture without force against the outside of the head, so\\nwe are sure that something happened to the outside of this\\nchild’s head that was a force directed against it.” Like Dr.\\nBarnes, he was critical of the State’s medical experts’ testi‐\\nmony analogizing the force to that of a car accident or a multi‐\\nstory fall. He testified that a short fall of two or three feet\\nwould less commonly cause a skull fracture, and it was less\\nlikely to have a skull fracture from a short fall than from being\\nswung or slammed into a hard object. Though Dr. Scheller\\nthought that J.J.’s injuries were more in line with a fall because\\nof the absence of bruising, he later stated it was possible to\\nhave a skull fracture without any bruising. Dr. Scheller testi‐\\nfied, “I believe that the baby did develop the skull fracture,\\nthe brain swelling, and the retinal hemorrhages from a short\\nfall rather than having been maliciously slammed into some‐\\nthing” because “from witnessed short falls, that when babies\\nget a skull fracture, it is in the parietal area … and that’s where\\nbaby Felton’s skull fracture was. And we really didn’t see any\\nevidence of bruising. Again, if a baby’s being held violently\\nand being slammed, then you’re going to look for bruising or\\n\\f20 No. 18‐1954\\n\\nbone injuries somewhere else, and we really didn’t see that.”\\nHe noted a parietal fracture was a common injury in infants\\nand, in his experience, if the injury is not witnessed and there\\nis no other abnormality, the conclusion is that the injury was\\naccidental. As for when J.J. sustained his injuries, Dr. Scheller\\ntestified it could have been three to six hours, maybe twelve\\nhours, but not twenty‐four hours.\\n The final doctor to testify at the hearing was Dr. John Plun‐\\nkett, a forensic pathologist from Minnesota. Dr. Plunkett\\nstated that J.J. was pretty immobile, so “we’re not talking\\nabout him rolling or falling off of some structure. We’re talk‐\\ning about an adult either intentionally or accidentally drop‐\\nping him or throwing him. Those are your possibilities, at\\nleast from the history that I have, so you can’t draw an anal‐\\nogy and just say fall.” Put another way, Dr. Plunkett testified\\nthat J.J.’s fracture was “consistent with an aggressive, mali‐\\ncious act against the baby’s head and it’s also consistent with\\na short fall,” but there was no way to tell absolutely. Similarly,\\nthere was no way to tell just by looking at the injuries whether\\nthey were the result of an accidental or intentional cause ac‐\\ncording to Dr. Plunkett. He stated that he would expect to see\\nother injuries if a child had been swung into a wall like a base‐\\nball bat. On cross‐examination, Dr. Plunkett testified it was\\npossible, though, for a child to be propelled or struck against\\nan object with the same velocity and acceleration that would\\nresult from a three‐and‐a‐half‐foot fall.\\n The state trial court denied Felton’s post‐conviction mo‐\\ntion for relief, analyzing both the performance and prejudice\\nprongs of the ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The Wis‐\\nconsin Court of Appeals similarly denied Felton’s petition,\\n\\fNo. 18‐1954 21\\n\\nconcluding that neither counsel’s failure to object to the pros‐\\necutor’s closing argument statement nor her failure to call\\nmedical experts was prejudicial. The Wisconsin Supreme\\nCourt summarily denied Felton’ petition for review. Felton\\nfiled a petition for federal habeas relief in federal court. The\\ndistrict court denied his petition, but it issued a certificate of\\nappealability. Felton now appeals.\\n II.\\n To succeed on his claim of ineffective assistance of coun‐\\nsel, Felton must show his counsel’s performance was deficient\\nand he was prejudiced as a result. Strickland v. Washington, 466\\nU.S. 668, 687 (1984). We are not required to consider perfor‐\\nmance or prejudice in a particular order or even address “both\\ncomponents of the inquiry if [Felton] makes an insufficient\\nshowing on one.” Id. at 697.\\n We review a district court’s denial of a petition for habeas\\ncorpus de novo and findings of fact for clear error. Barrow v.\\nUchtman, 398 F.3d 597, 602 (7th Cir. 2005). The Antiterrorism\\nand Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) authorizes us to\\ngrant habeas relief only if the state court decision was “con‐\\ntrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of clearly\\nestablished Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court\\nof the United States” or “based on an unreasonable determi‐\\nnation of the facts in the light of the evidence presented in the\\nstate court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). We will consider\\n“the last reasoned opinion on the claim,” which in this case is\\nfrom the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. Woolley v. Rednour, 702\\nF.3d 411, 421 (7th Cir. 2012) (quoting Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501\\nU.S. 797, 803 (1991)). A state court’s application of federal law\\nis unreasonable if it is “more than incorrect; it must have been\\nobjectively unreasonable.” Id. at 420 (citing Wiggins v. Smith,\\n\\f22 No. 18‐1954\\n\\n539 U.S. 510, 520 (2003)); accord Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362,\\n411 (2000). “‘Unreasonable’ in [the AEDPA] context means\\nmore than just incorrect; it means something … lying well\\noutside the boundaries of permissible differences of opinion.”\\nMcGhee v. Dittmann, 794 F.3d 761, 769 (7th Cir. 2015) (quoting\\nCorcoran v. Neal, 783 F.3d 676, 683 (7th Cir. 2015)). “The bar for\\nestablishing that the state court’s application of the Strickland\\n[ineffective assistance of counsel] standard was ‘unreasona‐\\nble,’ is a high one.” Taylor v. Bradley, 448 F.3d 942, 948 (7th Cir.\\n2006). “[A]s long as we are satisfied that the Wisconsin Court\\nof Appeals took the constitutional standard seriously and pro‐\\nduce[d] an answer within the range of defensible positions,\\nwe will affirm the district court’s decision to deny the writ.”\\nId. (citation and internal quotation omitted).\\n Before turning to the merits of Felton’s claim, we must de‐\\ntermine the appropriate standard of review in this case. Felton\\nargues the Wisconsin Court of Appeals is not entitled to\\nAEDPA deference on either the performance or prejudice\\nprongs of Strickland. As for the performance prong, we agree.\\nBecause the Wisconsin Court of Appeals did not address the\\nperformance prong, we are to review counsel’s performance\\nde novo. Woolley, 702 F.3d at 422.\\n Regarding the prejudice prong, Felton argues that our re‐\\nview also should be de novo because the Wisconsin Court of\\nAppeals unreasonably applied Strickland. See Thomas v. Clem‐\\nents, 789 F.3d 760, 767 (7th Cir. 2015) (reviewing state court’s\\nprejudice prong analysis de novo where the court “only used\\ntwo sentences to address the prejudice prong and did not ac‐\\ntually analyze why there was no prejudice”). First, Felton as‐\\nserts the state appellate court unreasonably applied the Strick‐\\n\\fNo. 18‐1954 23\\n\\nland prejudice standard to the facts by not “independently un‐\\ndertaking a complete review and analysis of the trial and\\npostconviction expert testimony.” Felton, however, did not\\npresent this argument to the district court. “[A]rguments in a\\nfederal habeas petition which were not raised in the district\\ncourt are not properly raised for the first time on appeal.”\\nMertz v. Williams, 771 F.3d 1035, 1043 (7th Cir. 2014). “Regard‐\\nless of whether a habeas claim was fairly presented or de‐\\nfaulted in the state courts, if an argument was not presented\\nto the federal district court, it is forfeited in this court.” Frazier\\nv. Varga, 843 F.3d 258, 262 (7th Cir. 2016). By not presenting it\\nto the district court, Felton similarly forfeited his contention\\nthat the Wisconsin Court of Appeals unreasonably applied\\nStrickland by failing to review counsel’s errors cumulatively.\\nId.3\\n As he did argue before the district court, Felton contends\\nthat he is entitled to de novo review because the state court im‐\\nproperly used an outcome‐determinative test in applying\\nStrickland. Concluding counsel’s failure to object to the prose‐\\ncutor’s closing argument “was not prejudicial,” the Wisconsin\\nCourt of Appeals stated, “[W]e do not believe there is a rea‐\\nsonable probability that it affected the outcome of the trial.”\\nThe Wisconsin Court of Appeals’s use of the word “outcome”\\n\\n 3 The State argues Felton did not fairly present to the state court this\\nclaim of the cumulative prejudicial effects of counsel’s errors, citing Black‐\\nmon v. Williams, 823 F.3d 1088, 1100 (7th Cir. 2016), in which a claim was\\nprocedurally defaulted because petitioner did not raise it before the state\\ncourts. While Felton’s only mention of cumulative review before the Wis‐\\nconsin Court of Appeals was in a subheading of his brief stating, “Indi‐\\nvidually or cumulatively, these deficiencies prejudice Felton,” we need\\nnot undertake a procedural default analysis because Felton also did not\\nassert this argument before the district court.\\n\\f24 No. 18‐1954\\n\\ndoes not mean it applied the outcome‐determinative standard\\nthat the Supreme Court declined to adopt in Strickland, par‐\\nticularly because it is modified by no “reasonable probabil‐\\nity.” 466 U.S. at 693 (declining to adopt an outcome‐determi‐\\nnative standard, “that counsel’s deficient conduct more likely\\nthan not altered the outcome in the case.”) (emphasis added);\\nsee Ruhl v. Hardy, 743 F.3d 1083, 1092 (7th Cir. 2014) (summa‐\\nrizing that to establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a de‐\\nfendant must show, in part, that “there is a reasonable proba‐\\nbility that counsel’s errors affected the outcome of the proceed‐\\ning.”) (emphasis added). We are also unpersuaded by Felton’s\\nargument that the state appellate court’s conclusion that “the\\nState’s case did not hinge on House’s testimony” is proof it\\napplied an outcome‐determinative approach. In so stating,\\nthe Wisconsin Court of Appeals was describing House’s testi‐\\nmony in relation to the other evidence presented at trial, in‐\\ncluding the trial evidence undermining House’s credibility. In\\nother words, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals was stating why\\ncounsel’s failure to object did not “undermine confidence in\\nthe outcome” of the trial. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694. This is\\nexactly what the Wisconsin Court of Appeals was required to\\ndo to determine whether there was a “reasonable probability\\nthat, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the\\nproceeding would have been different.” Id. Therefore, our re‐\\nview of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals’s denial of Felton’s\\nineffective assistance of counsel claim based on prejudice is\\n“highly deferential.” Hinesley v. Knight, 837 F.3d 721, 732 (7th\\nCir. 2016) (quoting Burt v. Titlow, 571 U.S. 12, 18 (2013)).\\n Because we will review the prejudice determination of the\\nWisconsin Court of Appeals for whether it was unreasonable\\nin light of the evidence presented, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2), and\\nStrickland’s performance prong de novo, we will first consider\\n\\fNo. 18‐1954 25\\n\\nthe prejudice prong. Only if Felton prevails on the prejudice\\nprong will we need to consider the performance prong. See\\nStrickland, 466 U.S. at 697 (noting “there is no reason for a\\ncourt deciding an ineffective assistance claim … to address\\nboth components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an in‐\\nsufficient showing on one.”).\\n With the standard of review decided, we turn to the prej‐\\nudice prong of Felton’s ineffective assistance claim. To estab‐\\nlish prejudice, Felton must show “that there is a reasonable\\nprobability that, but for counselʹs unprofessional errors, the\\nresult of the proceeding would have been different. A reason‐\\nable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confi‐\\ndence in the outcome.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694. Felton must\\ndo more than show that “it is possible a reasonable doubt\\nmight have been established if counsel acted differently.”\\nHarrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 111 (2011). “Instead, Strick‐\\nland asks whether it is ‘reasonably likely’ the result would\\nhave been different.” Id. (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 696).\\n“The likelihood of a different result must be substantial, not\\njust conceivable.” Id. at 112.\\n Felton argues his trial counsel erred in two ways: by fail‐\\ning to object to the prosecutor’s closing argument statement\\nregarding the availability of a sentence modification for\\nHouse and by failing to call medical experts at trial. We first\\naddress counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s closing\\nargument. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals held counsel’s\\nfailure to object to the prosecutor’s statement was not preju‐\\ndicial. The state appellate court noted House had credibility\\nissues, citing his criminal history, and counsel diminished the\\nimpact of the State’s statement by noting the availability of a\\n\\f26 No. 18‐1954\\n\\nsentence modification in the future. We conclude that this is\\nnot an unreasonable conclusion in light of the facts.\\n House had a host of credibility problems, and the jury was\\naware of these problems. At the time of trial, House was in jail\\nand had nine or ten prior convictions. He was known as a jail‐\\nhouse lawyer, snitch, and scam artist. Moreover, as trial coun‐\\nsel demonstrated through the jailhouse phone calls, House\\nwas willing to reveal information he obtained while in prison\\nto law enforcement for his own benefit and then later lie un‐\\nder oath about doing just that. Whether House received a ben‐\\nefit for his testimony at Felton’s trial did not diminish House’s\\nsignificant credibility problems. Any objection to the prosecu‐\\ntor’s non‐evidentiary statement in closing argument rebuttal\\nwould not have altered House’s testimony about Felton’s con‐\\nfession. The jury also heard Felton’s counsel’s closing argu‐\\nment where she asserted that House did not receive any ben‐\\nefit yet. Therefore, even if counsel erred by not objecting to the\\nprosecutor’s closing argument rebuttal statement, there was\\nnot a substantial likelihood of a different result had counsel\\nobjected, Strickland, 466 U.S. at 696, and we conclude the Wis‐\\nconsin Court of Appeals was not unreasonable in concluding\\nthat Felton was not prejudiced by counsel’s failure to object,\\ncf. Baer v. Neal, 879 F.3d 769, 788 (7th Cir. 2018) (When review‐\\ning a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, “we are to consider\\nthe prosecutorʹs conduct not in isolation, but in the context of\\nthe trial as a whole, to determine if such conduct was so in‐\\nflammatory and prejudicial to the defendant … as to deprive\\nhim of a fair trial.”) (internal quotations and citations omit‐\\nted).\\n Regarding counsel’s other error, Felton argues having ex‐\\nperts to challenge the State’s medical evidence “was essential\\n\\fNo. 18‐1954 27\\n\\nto the defense because Felton said J.J. accidentally slipped and\\nfell in the bathtub. If experts could show the accident as a\\nplausible cause of death, the jury could harbor reasonable\\ndoubt.” In support of his claim of prejudice, Felton also as‐\\nserts that his experts made two key points: first, there was no\\nmedical evidence to support a diagnosis of shaking, and sec‐\\nond, his experts supported his claim that J.J.’s injuries were\\nthe result of a relatively minor fall.4\\n Taking the second point first, Felton’s medical expert tes‐\\ntimony does not support the theory that J.J.’s bathtub slip and\\nfall caused his death. Those experts testified that J.J.’s injuries\\nwere consistent with a fall from two to four feet or striking\\nsomething with the force of a fall from two to four feet. J.J.\\nwas 24.5 inches tall. Even if J.J. slid from the seated position\\nand hit his head in the tub, such a fall would only have been\\nfrom about one foot and would not have been a free fall, but,\\nrather, a slide from the seated position. Therefore, there is not\\na reasonable probability that Felton would not have been con‐\\nvicted because the habeas medical testimony would not have\\nsupported the claim that J.J.’s death was caused by his bath‐\\ntub fall.\\n Furthermore, both the trial and habeas medical experts\\nagreed that J.J. was not mobile at the time of his death, and\\nthere was no evidence at trial that someone fell while holding\\nJ.J. To the extent that Felton’s theory was that someone else\\n\\n\\n 4 While he argued before the district court that his post‐trial experts\\nrebutted the State’s medical expert testimony regarding when J.J.’s inju‐\\nries were incurred, Felton concedes on appeal that neither sides’ experts\\ncould narrow the timing of the injuries to one particular suspect.\\n\\f28 No. 18‐1954\\n\\nhurt J.J. at the playground, trial counsel elicited testimony\\nfrom Dr. Vardis that, hypothetically, J.J.’s injuries could have\\nbeen the result of a playground fall. And the jury heard testi‐\\nmony about Sasha bumping J.J.’s head on the door frame and\\nmedical testimony from Dr. Taylor that such a bump on the\\nleft side of the head would not have caused J.J.’s injuries. Sim‐\\nilarly, Dr. Barnes testified at the habeas hearing that J.J.’s in‐\\njuries were not the result of an accidental bump to his head.\\n Regarding shaking, it is true that two of the State’s experts\\ntestified at trial that J.J. had been shaken, and according to\\nDr. Vardis, shaken severely, and that Felton’s habeas experts\\nrebutted that testimony citing the absence of a neck injury.\\nShaking, however, was not the only evidence the jury heard\\nabout the cause of death. Dr. Witeck testified that the cause of\\nJ.J.’s death was “head injuries due to blunt force trauma.” And\\neven Dr. Vardis testified that J.J. had been slammed into a\\nhard object, which is consistent with the testimony of Dr.\\nBarnes that even if J.J. had been shaken, his injuries were from\\nsome sort of impact and would not have been from shaking\\nalone. In light of this evidence, the Wisconsin Court of Ap‐\\npeals was not unreasonable in its conclusion that “we are not\\nconvinced that the differences in expert medical testimony\\nwere significant enough to undermine our confidence in the\\noutcome or prevent the real controversy from being tried”.5\\n\\n 5To the extent that Felton’s argument that the state appellate court\\nunreasonably applied Strickland’s prejudice standard to the facts is also an\\nargument that the state appellate court’s decision is “based on an unrea‐\\nsonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the\\nstate court proceeding,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), that argument is unavailing.\\nThe Wisconsin Court of Appeals was critical that Felton’s citations did not\\nsupport particular assertions, were only partially true, or were completely\\nabsent in support of certain claims. Because Felton’s brief was required to\\n\\fNo. 18‐1954 29\\n\\n In support of his claim of prejudice, Felton further argues\\nthat House’s testimony corroborated the State’s medical testi‐\\nmony and, in turn, the State’s medical testimony corroborated\\nHouse’s testimony. House’s testimony, however, did not cor‐\\nroborate the medical evidence in the way Felton asserts in his\\nbrief. Without citation to the record, Felton repeatedly states\\nthat House testified that Felton confessed to shaking and\\nslamming J.J. At trial, though, House never testified about\\nshaking, but rather testified that Felton “swung [the baby]\\ninto the bathroom door.” Further, the habeas medical testi‐\\nmony did not undermine House’s testimony, and, in fact, was\\nsupported in part by Dr. Plunkett’s testimony that J.J. could\\nhave been struck with the same force as a three to four foot\\nfall. Even if the habeas medical experts had testified at trial\\nand Felton’s counsel had objected to the prosecutor’s closing\\nargument, it was not reasonably likely the jury’s decision\\nwould have been different. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 696.\\n Finally, as the Wisconsin Court of Appeals noted, counsel\\npresented evidence that others had “custody of [J.J.] on the\\nday he was admitted to the hospital,” and these alleged errors\\ndid not affect that evidence. Similarly, the unfavorable trial\\ntestimony about Felton was unaffected by these alleged er‐\\nrors. Id. (noting that some errors will not affect some of the\\nfactual findings). Felton’s failure to tell anyone about J.J.’s slip\\n\\ncontain “a statement of facts relevant to the issues presented for review,\\nwith appropriate references to the record,” Wis. Stat. 809.19(1)(d) and\\n“[j]udges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in the record,” Gross\\nv. Town of Cicero, 619 F.3d 697, 702 (7th Cir. 2010), the Wisconsin Court of\\nAppeals’s conclusion about a lack of prejudice was not unreasonable. See\\ngenerally United States v. Lewis, 594 F.3d 1270, 1275 (10th Cir. 2010) (“[I]t is\\nnot this court’s duty to scour without guidance a voluminous record for\\nevidence supporting the government’s theory.”).\\n\\f30 No. 18‐1954\\n\\nin the bathtub, including Sasha when she phoned from work\\nor the hospital physicians, his delay in telling the police J.J.\\nfell in the tub, testimony that he was goofing around while his\\nson was in the NICU suffering severe brain trauma, testimony\\nthat Felton stated at the hospital that he did not want to go to\\njail, testimony that he had limited experience caring for J.J. by\\nhimself, and testimony he compelled his cellmate to sign a re‐\\nquest form he had written in an attempt presumably to un‐\\ndermine House were all unaffected by the errors that Felton\\nnow alleges. And as we discussed above, the habeas medical\\ntestimony would not have supported Felton’s claim about the\\ncause of J.J.’s injury. Accordingly, the Wisconsin Court of Ap‐\\npeals did not unreasonably conclude that Felton was not prej‐\\nudiced by counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s state‐\\nment and failure to call medical experts.\\n III.\\n We AFFIRM the denial of Felton’s petition for a writ of\\nhabeas corpus.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2596,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4630720,"string":"4,630,720"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Jeremiah Felton v. Byran Bartow"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-06-18"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-1954"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before RIPPLE, MANION, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Daniel Anthony Manion\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18‐1954\\nJEREMIAH FELTON,\\n Petitioner‐Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nBRYAN BARTOW,\\n Respondent‐Appellee.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Eastern District of Wisconsin.\\n No. 14‐cv‐965 — Nancy Joseph, Magistrate Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED FEBRUARY 22, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 18, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before RIPPLE, MANION, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\\n MANION, Circuit Judge. A jury convicted Jeremiah Felton of\\nfirst degree intentional homicide in Wisconsin state court for\\nthe death of his three‐month‐old son, Jeremiah Felton Jr. (J.J.).\\nThe jury heard testimony about the days leading up to J.J.’s\\ndeath, such as those who cared for and had contact with him,\\nincluding Felton. The jury also heard about Felton’s conver‐\\nsations with police, whom he told that J.J. had slipped and hit\\nhis head in the bathtub, and with fellow jail inmate, Douglas\\n\\f2 No. 18‐1954\\n\\nHouse, who testified that Felton said he had swung J.J. into a\\nbathroom door. J.J.’s treating physicians and the medical ex‐\\naminer also testified about J.J.’s injuries and cause of death,\\nwhich two of the physicians stated, in part, was due to shak‐\\ning. The medical examiner concluded that blunt force trauma\\nwas the cause of death. The jury found Felton guilty.\\n Felton sought post‐conviction relief in the Wisconsin state\\ncourt based on ineffective assistance of counsel. In particular,\\nFelton cited his attorney’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s\\nstatement during closing argument that House could not re‐\\nceive a sentence modification for his testimony in Felton’s trial\\nand failure to secure medical expert testimony to rebut the\\nState’s witnesses. At the post‐conviction hearing, Felton’s\\ncounsel testified as well as three medical experts who con‐\\ncluded J.J. had not been shaken and J.J.’s injuries were con‐\\nsistent with a fall of two to four feet. The state trial court de‐\\nnied Felton’s petition, and the Wisconsin Court of Appeals af‐\\nfirmed the denial. The Wisconsin Supreme Court summarily\\ndenied Felton’s petition for review. Felton sought a writ of ha‐\\nbeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the district court. The\\ndistrict court denied Felton’s petition, and Felton now appeals\\nto this court. Because the decision of the Wisconsin Court of\\nAppeals was not unreasonable, Felton’s petition is denied.\\n I.\\nA. Criminal Trial1\\n J.J. Felton was born on February 16, 2008. During his short\\nlife, J.J. lived with his mother, Sasha Fulton, and his father,\\n\\n\\n 1Unless otherwise noted, the facts are drawn from the testimony and\\nother evidence at Felton’s criminal jury trial.\\n\\fNo. 18‐1954 3\\n\\nJeremiah Felton, would sometimes stay with them. Sasha and\\nFelton were not married. They had renewed their relationship\\nin June 2008, and Felton moved with Sasha and J.J. to a new\\napartment the weekend before J.J. died. On Sunday, June 1,\\n2008, J.J. spent the day at the park with various family mem‐\\nbers, including his parents. Sasha took J.J. home around sup‐\\npertime while Felton stayed out until after midnight. That\\nnight, Felton stayed with Sasha and J.J. at the new apartment.\\nSasha’s cousin, Bryiana Fulton, and her baby also stayed there\\nthat night.\\n 1. The Day at the Apartment\\n The next morning, while Felton slept, Sasha fed and\\nplayed with J.J. before going to work shortly before 9 a.m. Bry‐\\niana sometimes cared for J.J., but that day, Sasha told her to\\nleave him with Felton. It was the first time Sasha left J.J. in\\nFelton’s care for the day while she was at work.\\n While Felton was home with J.J., different family members\\ncame in and out of the apartment throughout the day. Bryiana\\nleft the apartment sometime after 9 a.m. When she returned\\naround noon, Felton and J.J. were there along with Byrian Ful‐\\nton (Bryiana’s brother) and Casey Fulton (Sasha’s brother).\\nJ.J. seemed to be acting normally at that time. Bryiana gave\\nhim a bottle before leaving around 12:30 p.m. Casey and Byr‐\\nian left at the same time, and Felton remained in the apart‐\\nment with J.J. Sasha called Felton from work about 2:30 or\\n3 p.m., and he told her that J.J. had been sleeping all day.\\n Sasha’s fifteen‐year‐old cousin, Anthony Hendrix, came\\nby the apartment sometime after his school let out for the day\\nat 2:30 p.m. There he found Felton alone in the apartment with\\nJ.J., who was sleeping on the couch while Felton was getting\\n\\f4 No. 18‐1954\\n\\nout of the shower. Hendrix testified that J.J. cried multiple\\ntimes while he was there, and that both he and Felton picked\\nhim up. Hendrix put J.J. down in his crib and patted his back.\\nJ.J. stopped crying, and Hendrix left soon after.\\n When Sasha returned home from work around 5:25 p.m.,\\nshe checked on J.J., who was sleeping. She let him sleep; J.J.\\nwas a fussy baby, and Sasha did not want to disturb him. Bry‐\\niana came back around the same time. Felton asked Sasha to\\ndrive him to his friend’s graduation. After eating a sandwich,\\nSasha borrowed Bryiana’s car to drive Felton to the gradua‐\\ntion ceremony and returned about a half hour to forty\\nminutes later. While Sasha and Felton were gone, Bryiana\\nstayed at Sasha’s apartment with her son and J.J. When Sasha\\nreturned, she did not check on J.J. right away, but let him sleep\\nand began cleaning the kitchen and bathroom. About fifteen\\nminutes later, she heard J.J. make a funny noise and went to\\ncheck on him. There she found J.J. with one eye open and one\\neye shut. Sasha cried out that something was wrong. Bryiana\\nthought that Sasha was overreacting until she saw J.J. She then\\ntold Sasha to call 911 while she attempted to revive J.J.\\n 2. At the Hospital\\n J.J. was taken by ambulance to St. Vincent Hospital in\\nGreen Bay around 7:30 p.m. Dr. John Taylor, pediatric critical\\ncare physician, first saw J.J. shortly after he arrived at the hos‐\\npital. Dr. Taylor intubated J.J. and ordered x‐rays and a CT\\nscan. The CT scan revealed J.J. had a skull fracture just above\\nand slightly behind his right ear, specifically his right parietal\\nbone, bleeding under his skull and in his brain, and retinal\\nhemorrhages. Dr. Taylor told Sasha and Felton he was con‐\\ncerned someone had hurt J.J. because there was no record of\\na car accident or someone falling or tripping down the stairs\\n\\fNo. 18‐1954 5\\n\\nwith their son, and J.J. was not yet rolling or moving by him‐\\nself. Sasha told Dr. Taylor that the day before while she had\\nbeen carrying J.J. in her left arm, J.J. bumped his head as she\\nwalked through the door. Felton did not give any explanation\\nto Dr. Taylor.\\n A number of family members came to the hospital that\\nnight. Some of them played in the halls, including Felton, who\\npushed Casey around in a wheelchair. Hospital staff asked\\nthem to leave because they were too noisy and disruptive. Fel‐\\nton and Sasha were allowed to stay, and they fell asleep in the\\nfamily waiting room.\\n That same night, the hospital or Brown County Human\\nServices contacted the police about J.J.’s serious injuries and\\nthe lack of explanation for them. Detective Robert Haglund\\nand Detective Walter Wickman of the Green Bay Police De‐\\npartment arrived at the hospital around 3 a.m. on Tuesday,\\nJune 3. Haglund woke Felton and Sasha. He interviewed\\nSasha with a human services representative present, and\\nWickman interviewed Felton in a separate room. There Felton\\ntold Wickman that he did not know what could have hap‐\\npened because J.J. was with him or people they knew. He told\\nWickman about Sasha bumping J.J.’s head into the door, but\\nprovided no other explanation about how J.J. might have sus‐\\ntained his injuries. After interviewing Sasha, Haglund joined\\nWickman and Felton and asked Felton what had happened.\\nAfter confirming Felton told him the same thing he had just\\ntold Wickman, Haglund and Wickman left the hospital.\\n Haglund returned to the hospital the next day and spoke\\nwith various family members, including Bryiana and Hen‐\\ndrix, asking them what might have happened to J.J. He\\nlearned about the move to the new apartment on Friday and\\n\\f6 No. 18‐1954\\n\\nSaturday and the day at the park on Sunday. At the end of his\\ninterviews, Haglund asked the family, including Felton,\\nSasha, and Bryiana, to be quiet because they were being noisy\\nplaying up and down the halls. Haglund also told them he\\nbelieved one of the family members was responsible for J.J.’s\\ninjuries and his prime suspects were Felton, Bryiana, and\\nSasha because they had been alone with J.J. on Monday. Hag‐\\nlund also advised Felton to check in with his probation officer\\nas he was required to do if he spoke with law enforcement.\\n While at the hospital, Felton stated more than once, “I just\\ndon’t want to go to jail.” In one instance, Bryiana testified Fel‐\\nton expressed frustration over what he thought was a lack of\\ninformation from doctors, and he did not want to hit the doc‐\\ntor and go to jail.\\n 3. J.J.’s Death and Felton’s Conversation with Police and\\n Fellow Inmate\\n J.J.’s condition worsened, and he died from his injuries on\\nJune 5th. Shortly after his son’s death, Felton went to the\\nBrown County Jail on a probation hold. On June 9, 2008, Fel‐\\nton asked to talk with police and spoke with Haglund. Felton\\ngave Haglund a statement, which Haglund typed and Felton\\nread and signed. In that statement, Felton recounted that\\naround 2 p.m. on the day J.J. was rushed to the hospital, “I got\\nin the bathtub with my baby and started giving him a bath.\\nThere was only two inches of water. He was sitting between\\nmy legs and his butt slipped forward and his head came back‐\\nwards and his head hit the bottom of the tub between my legs.\\nHis right ear went in the water, but his face didn’t go under\\nthe water. He started crying. I wiped him off, got him dressed,\\nand gave him a bottle, patted him to sleep while he was lying\\non the couch.” Felton told Haglund he felt it in his legs when\\n\\fNo. 18‐1954 7\\n\\nJ.J. hit the bottom of the tub and J.J. hit the tub “kind of hard.”\\nFelton said he was going to tell Haglund about this in the hos‐\\npital, but Haglund made him nervous.\\n Haglund spoke again with Felton on June 12th telling him\\nthe doctors said that the slip in the tub could not have caused\\nJ.J.’s injuries. When Haglund left the interview room, Felton\\nstood by the door trying to listen to what was being said out‐\\nside the room, which Haglund stated witnesses typically do\\nnot do. After speaking with Felton on June 12th, Haglund sent\\nthe case file over to the District Attorney’s Office recommend‐\\ning Felton be charged with first degree intentional homicide\\nfor J.J.’s death. On June 13, 2008, the Green Bay Police Depart‐\\nment issued a press release about its request and stated J.J.\\nhad suffered a skull fracture from blunt force trauma. The\\npress release did not say where the fracture was located on\\nthe skull.\\n Meanwhile, Douglas House, one of Felton’s fellow in‐\\nmates at the Brown County Jail, sent police a request form,\\notherwise known as a “kite,” dated June 13, 2008. House had\\nnine to ten prior convictions and had a reputation as both a\\njailhouse lawyer and a snitch. House’s kite stated, “I have con‐\\nclusive evidence to convict Jeremiah Felton, Sr. in the death of\\nhis infant son, Junior. That was caused by right side trauma\\nto head behind right ear. Will only come out if called out as\\nan attorney visit.”\\n Haglund spoke with House on June 16th. (It was the not\\nthe first time Haglund and House spoke with one another;\\nthey had previously talked about other cases.) House told\\nHaglund that when Felton approached him, Felton had not\\nyet been charged with J.J.’s death, and they discussed the time\\nconstraints for Felton’s probation hold. After that, Felton told\\n\\f8 No. 18‐1954\\n\\nhim about J.J. House told Haglund that Felton had told him\\nthat J.J. was getting on his nerves, so he swung J.J. into the\\nbathroom door hitting the right side of J.J.’s head behind his\\near. House also asked Haglund to look into whether the police\\nwere harassing his children.\\n House spoke again with Haglund on June 23rd. Haglund\\ntold House that the police were watching another house near\\nhis children. House, in turn, told Haglund that Felton told\\nhim that the police questioned him about J.J. and he planned\\nto blame it on his girlfriend’s sister. In addition to telling Hag‐\\nlund about Felton, House asked Haglund if he could look into\\npolice harassing his son and daughter. Haglund checked into\\nthis and later told House that the police were not watching his\\nkids, but were watching a nearby house.\\n 4. Other Criminal Trial Testimony\\n Felton was charged with first degree intentional homicide\\nin J.J.’s death, and the case proceeded to trial. Several wit‐\\nnesses, including Sasha and Felton’s mother, testified that J.J.\\nwas a fussy baby. On one occasion, Bryiana “popped” J.J. and\\nher son on their diapers when they were “both a little crabby.”\\nSasha testified that she did not like that Bryiana spanked J.J.,\\nbut she was very close with her cousin and trusted her to care\\nfor J.J. As for Felton, Sasha and others testified that he was\\ngood with his children and nieces and nephews, and they also\\ntestified that if J.J. got fussy, Felton would pass J.J. to someone\\nelse or put him in his car seat until he stopped crying.\\n House testified at trial:\\n A. Well, he [Felton] said that he had been home, I be‐\\n lieve he said he was home with his girlfriend’s sister,\\n or wife’s sister, one or the other, and that he was giving\\n\\fNo. 18‐1954 9\\n\\n the baby a bath, and the baby slipped. That the baby\\n had either gotten water in his eyes or mouth and\\n started crying, and he tried for a long period of time to\\n quiet the baby down, but that didn’t happen.\\n Q. What else did he continue to tell you what hap‐\\n pened?\\n A. He had gotten frustrated and was holding the baby,\\n and then swung the baby into the bathroom door. The\\n baby, Jeremiah, hit his head on the right side, and he\\n pointed to the left ‐ ‐ or the right side behind his ear of\\n where the baby hit his head.\\n Q. I was going to ask, how do you know it was the right\\n side?\\n A. Well, as he was telling me, he made the motion, and\\n he said he was holding the baby, swung the baby, and\\n the baby hit his head, and I said where, and he said\\n right here, and he pointed right behind his head.\\n …\\n Q. Did he say anything else to you after ‐ ‐\\n A. He did. You know, he made it sound like he was\\n going to put the blame on the ‐ ‐ the girlfriend’s sister,\\n and he said he ‐ ‐ he also said you know, for a substan‐\\n tial amount of time that baby shut up so he knew some‐\\n thing was wrong.\\n House found Felton’s demeanor odd because “it was like\\nthere was no concern whatsoever for the baby.” House also\\ntold the jury about Felton’s confession and identified Felton\\nin the courtroom. He testified that after Felton was charged,\\n\\f10 No. 18‐1954\\n\\nFelton approached House about the kite and asked why\\nHouse snitched on him.\\n On cross‐examination, House denied ever talking with his\\nattorney about getting anything in return for information he\\nhad about Felton. Felton’s counsel impeached House by play‐\\ning two recorded telephone conversations that House had\\nwhile in the Brown County Jail. The first call was between\\nHouse and his attorney. During that call, House’s attorney\\ntold him she had spoken with Haglund who said he was un‐\\nsure he could do anything for House unless House testified in\\nFelton’s case. House’s attorney also discussed information\\nHouse had about another homicide. The second call was be‐\\ntween House and one of his daughters. House’s daughter told\\nhim that Haglund had said House needed to testify “against\\n[sic] for the baby or something.” On redirect, House testified\\nhis case was over and he did not receive any consideration in\\nhis case for his testimony in Felton’s trial.\\n Felton called his Brown County Jail cellmate, Ishtayopi\\nJones, to testify. Jones came to the jail on June 14th. He was\\nfamiliar with House because they had met previously, though\\nhe tried to stay away from House because his family warned\\nhim that House was a “con artist.” Jones stated House ex‐\\npressed concern to him when he learned that Jones was room‐\\ning with Felton, though House did not tell Jones why. Jones\\nsaid he learned about Felton’s case from the television. Jones\\nstated he did talk with Felton about House and what a “big\\ntroublemaker” and “scam artist” he was.\\n On cross‐examination, the prosecutor asked Jones about a\\nkite he signed and dated October 8, 2008. The kite stated, in\\npart, “I did not and will not try and tell on Jeremiah Felton.”\\nWhen asked at trial, “What’s there to tell on Jeremiah Felton,”\\n\\fNo. 18‐1954 11\\n\\nJones responded, “Nothing, I guess.” The prosecutor further\\nquestioned Jones about the kite, and Jones’s testimony made\\nit clear that he knew nothing about Felton’s case from Felton\\nor House and that Felton, not Jones, wrote the kite. When\\nasked why he signed the request form, Jones responded,\\n“‘Cause [Felton] looked pretty mad at me, then I just told him\\nI’d sign it and that if he needs me to testify, I’ll do that for\\nhim.” Jones also testified he told Haglund that Felton had\\nnever talked with Felton about his case and that House “is just\\nlying and making stuff up to get himself out of what situation\\nhe’s in right now.”\\n 5. Medical Testimony\\n Also at trial, the State called three physicians, two of J.J.’s\\ntreating physicians and the medical examiner, to present tes‐\\ntimony about J.J.’s injuries and cause of death. Dr. John Tay‐\\nlor, who first treated J.J. upon his arrival at the hospital, testi‐\\nfied that both J.J.’s fracture and retinal hemorrhaging were the\\nresult of a significant amount of force, such as a car accident.\\nIn J.J.’s case, Dr. Taylor suspected “most likely that this was a\\nresult of significant shaking.” Dr. Taylor stated that a bump\\nlike Sasha bumping J.J.’s head in the doorway would not ac‐\\ncount for J.J.’s injuries because the bump was on J.J.’s left side,\\nthe force would have been insufficient, and J.J. was eating,\\nsleeping, awakening, and playing in an age‐appropriate way\\nafter that. He also testified that it is difficult to establish a time\\nframe for when the injuries were sustained. According to\\nDr. Taylor, it could be at the longest a day, but he believed it\\nwas within an hour or two of the injuries presenting them‐\\nselves.\\n A couple hypotheticals were posed to Dr. Taylor while he\\nwas testifying. The prosecutor asked him about a child J.J.’s\\n\\f12 No. 18‐1954\\n\\nsize slipping in the bathtub between someone else’s legs and\\nhitting his head. Dr. Taylor responded that the distance of the\\nfall would not have caused the skull fracture, hemorrhages,\\nand bruising in the back of the eye. He stated that J.J.’s injuries\\nwere more consistent with his head being swung into a door\\nthan falling in a bathtub. Felton’s counsel asked whether, hy‐\\npothetically, those injuries could have resulted from someone\\nfalling with J.J. at the playground. Dr. Taylor responded that\\nit was “[e]xtraordinarily unlikely, but … there was a\\nminiscule possibility.”\\n Another of J.J.’s treating physicians, Dr. Ralph Vardis, also\\ntestified. He concluded that J.J.’s injuries were consistent with\\nbeing violently shaken and slammed into a hard surface. On\\ncross‐examination, Dr. Vardis stated that the injuries could\\nhave been caused by a fifteen‐year‐old so long as it was vio‐\\nlent and intentional. Dr. Vardis testified about the progression\\nof J.J.’s symptoms, namely the brain swelling, and concluded\\nthat J.J. was so severely shaken that his brain completely died.\\nHe said J.J.’s brain bleeding and skull fracture were not likely\\ncaused by a short fall, but rather “[t]he only way you can get\\nthe kind of findings that we saw is if the height was one to\\ntwo stories from the top of a building.” According to Dr. Var‐\\ndis, some of J.J.’s bleeding was due to the skull fracture and\\nsome of the bleeding was due to the shaking. He acknowl‐\\nedged on cross‐examination that there was a disagreement\\nbetween his opinion regarding J.J.’s cause of death, i.e. shaken\\nbaby syndrome, and the medical examiner’s conclusion in the\\nautopsy report, i.e. head injuries due to blunt force trauma.\\nAs for timing, Dr. Vardis noted that there is no way to tell\\nwhen the injuries occurred. He stated that the injury could not\\nhave happened on Sunday, but it could have happened be‐\\ntween five minutes to twelve hours from when the symptoms\\n\\fNo. 18‐1954 13\\n\\nwere evident. He also expected the same physical findings if\\nit had taken place at 1 p.m. or 5 p.m. the day J.J. came to the\\nhospital.\\n The third doctor to testify at trial was Dr. Mark Witeck. Dr.\\nWiteck, a forensic pathologist, served as the medical examiner\\nfor Brown County. He performed the autopsy on J.J. Based on\\nhis examination, Dr. Witeck concluded that J.J. died of “cra‐\\nnial cerebral trauma, in other words, head injuries due to\\nblunt force trauma.” Dr. Witeck testified that J.J. was just un‐\\nder 15 pounds and was 24.5 inches long, had no external inju‐\\nries, including bruises, and his anterior fontanel, commonly\\nreferred to as the soft spot in the front of the head, was bulg‐\\ning outward. This was consistent with brain swelling, and the\\nseverity and global nature of the swelling was consistent with\\na head injury. J.J. had fractures on the right side and front base\\nof his skull in “what’s called the orbital plate, that’s the little\\nbone plate that’s just above the eye.” There was also a blood\\nclot and bleeding on the surface of the right side of the brain.\\nDr. Witeck stated “that requires a lot of trauma to the head to\\nget that kind of bleeding.” Dr. Witeck testified J.J.’s brain\\nbleeding was consistent with the fracture. While he stated eye\\nhemorrhages are often seen in children who are shaken, he\\ndid not opine whether J.J. had been shaken.\\n According to Dr. Witeck, the fracture was consistent with\\nhaving been caused by blunt force trauma. This means J.J.’s\\nhead was hit with something or against something, though\\nthere was no way to know whether it was a single blow or\\nmultiple blows. He also said J.J.’s injuries were consistent\\nwith being swung into an object with significant force.\\nDr. Witeck testified J.J.’s fractures were not consistent with a\\nbaby standing and falling to the floor, but were consistent\\n\\f14 No. 18‐1954\\n\\nwith a fall only from a large height, like off of a one‐ or two‐\\nstory building. When asked whether a child of 24.5 inches tall\\nsitting in a bathtub, slipping, and hitting his head on the bath‐\\ntub could cause the injuries that he saw, Dr. Witeck re‐\\nsponded, “Not at all.” On cross‐examination, Dr. Witeck tes‐\\ntified a premature birth could play a part in a child’s suscep‐\\ntibility to fracture.\\n Felton did not call any medical experts to testify on his be‐\\nhalf. (As discussed below, his attorney consulted with her\\nphysician husband and a medical student, but did not call ei‐\\nther as witnesses at trial.) Other than the testimony elicited\\nfrom the State’s medical experts on cross‐examination, Felton\\ndid not present any medical evidence at trial.\\n 6. Jury Instructions, Closing Arguments, and Verdict\\n After the close of evidence, the trial judge instructed the\\njury. In part, the judge instructed, “Consider only the evi‐\\ndence received during this trial as given to you by these in‐\\nstructions, and from these alone, guided by your soundest\\nreason and best judgment, reach your verdict.” The judge also\\ninstructed, “Remarks of the attorneys are not evidence. If the\\nremarks suggested certain facts not in evidence, disregard the\\nsuggestion. In a few moments, you will hear the closing argu‐\\nments of the attorneys. Consider carefully the closing argu‐\\nments of the attorneys, but their arguments and conclusions\\nand opinions are not evidence. Draw your own conclusions\\nfrom the evidence and decide upon your verdict according to\\nthe evidence and the instructions given you by the court.” Af‐\\nter instructions, the prosecutor and Felton’s counsel pre‐\\nsented their closing arguments to the jury.\\n\\fNo. 18‐1954 15\\n\\n During closing arguments, the prosecutor argued in part:\\n What House is testifying has to be the truth … what\\n did he get for testifying on October 21st or 22nd, 2009?\\n The answer is nothing. Absolutely nothing. Is there a\\n case pending against him? No. Long gone. Over. Done\\n with. There’s nothing that House was going to gain by\\n testifying. Because his case was over. It was done. Per‐\\n haps, just maybe, perhaps, he testifies because he was\\n subpoenaed by the state and maybe, even somebody,\\n even a criminal like Doug House, can do the right thing\\n once in a while.\\n In response, Felton’s counsel stated:\\n And by the way, I am going to set the record straight.\\n State said, well, his case is settled. He didn’t get any\\n concessions. Cooperation with law enforcement, that\\n matter can be reopened any time for a sentence modi‐\\n fication. So the fact that he hasn’t received any benefit\\n yet, it might be ‘cause we had to wait for this case to go\\n forward. Doesn’t mean he’s not getting it. It means he\\n hasn’t gotten it yet.\\n And the prosecutor responded in the State’s rebuttal:\\n Mr. House has absolutely nothing to gain here. He was\\n honest with you. His case is closed. He can’t receive\\n anything for his testimony at this point. … [H]e won’t\\n gain anything, no advantages from the state. Just a\\n lightening of his conscience. … And he’s received no\\n consideration for this. His case is closed. Once again,\\n it’s done.\\n Felton’s counsel did not object to this latter statement.\\n(Several months later, House received a sentence reduction\\n\\f16 No. 18‐1954\\n\\nfor his testimony at Felton’s trial, though the State remained\\nsilent on that motion.) After deliberating for about four hours,\\nthe jury found Felton guilty of first degree intentional homi‐\\ncide. Felton was sentenced to life imprisonment.\\nB. Post‐conviction Proceedings\\n Felton filed a post‐conviction motion asserting ineffective\\nassistance of counsel based on two alleged errors. First, he ar‐\\ngued that his attorney erred by not securing medical experts\\nto rebut the State’s medical testimony at trial. Second, Felton\\nargued his attorney erred by not objecting to the prosecutor’s\\nclosing argument rebuttal statement that House would re‐\\nceive no benefit from his testimony. 2\\n 1. Felton’s Counsel\\n The state trial court conducted a hearing on Felton’s mo‐\\ntion. There Felton’s trial counsel testified. Felton was first rep‐\\nresented by a public defender, and counsel began to represent\\nFelton after he and his family privately retained her. While\\nthe original agreement was that she would receive $15,000 to\\ntake the case through trial, she essentially represented Felton\\npro‐bono receiving only $750 in payments. Despite a lack of\\ncompensation, counsel continued to represent Felton because\\nshe felt strongly about his case. Financial constraints, though,\\nimpacted her decision about medical experts. Counsel testi‐\\nfied that she did not hire medical experts because of the ex‐\\npense (the two out‐of‐state experts she contacted both wanted\\na minimum $2,500 retainer, and she never sought funding\\n\\n 2Felton also invoked the state trial court’s discretionary power to\\ngrant him post‐conviction relief in the interest of justice asserting the jury\\ndid not have the opportunity to hear the medical testimony and was mis‐\\nled by the prosecutor’s closing argument statements about House.\\n\\fNo. 18‐1954 17\\n\\nthrough the state public defender’s office). Counsel also\\nstated that she did not think that “hired guns” would play\\nwell to a Green Bay jury. Instead, she researched medical lit‐\\nerature and consulted her husband, a general internist who\\nspecialized in endocrinology, and a medical student, who was\\nworking for her husband, about the case. The medical student\\nhad relationships with physicians at Milwaukee Children’s\\nHospital and presented J.J.’s file to one of the doctors there.\\nThat doctor said that the race of the family was the first thing\\nat which he would look. This raised red flags for counsel, and\\nshe did not pursue an evaluation of the case from that doctor.\\nFinally, when asked, counsel testified she was aware of State\\nv. Edmunds, 746 N.W.2d 590 (Wis. 2008), in which the Wiscon‐\\nsin Supreme Court granted a new trial to a defendant based\\non newly discovered evidence rebutting the shaken baby syn‐\\ndrome theory. Counsel stated she did not contact any of the\\nEdmunds experts.\\n Regarding House, counsel said she repeatedly argued to\\nthe jury why it should not believe House. She also noted she\\nworked hard to discredit Detective Haglund, including ques‐\\ntioning him about any concessions for House, such as check‐\\ning on the surveillance of his daughter. She also explored al‐\\nternate avenues from which House could have learned about\\nthe case, such as the Green Bay Police Department press re‐\\nlease. She stated she made the strategic decision not to object\\nto the prosecutor’s closing argument rebuttal statement about\\nHouse because she concluded it was better in the face of the\\njury not to object. Moreover, counsel noted that she “objected\\nby giving a narration of my objection, rather than saying, ob‐\\njection.” In other words, she described to the jury House\\ncould be entitled to a sentence modification even if he had not\\nreceived one yet.\\n\\f18 No. 18‐1954\\n\\n 2. Post‐Trial Medical Experts\\n Felton also called three medical experts to testify at his\\npost‐conviction hearing. These physicians were critical of the\\nState’s medical experts in two key respects: they concluded\\nJ.J.’s injuries were not from shaking and his injuries could\\nhave been the result of a short fall.\\n The first doctor to testify was Dr. Patrick Barnes, a pediat‐\\nric radiologist and neuroradiologist from Stanford University\\nSchool of Medicine. Dr. Barnes disagreed with the State’s ex‐\\nperts that J.J. had been shaken. He noted that J.J. would have\\nsuffered a neck injury if he had been shaken. Moreover,\\nDr. Barnes stated that even if J.J. had been shaken, his injuries\\nwould have resulted from some sort of impact and not shak‐\\ning alone. He also strongly disagreed with the State’s experts\\nabout J.J.’s injuries being equivalent to those of a multi‐story\\nfall. Rather, Dr. Barnes testified that J.J.’s fracture was a classic\\nexample of a fall between two and three feet, such as a child\\nfalling while being held by a standing adult. He stated,\\nthough, J.J.’s fracture and other injuries were less likely a re‐\\nsult of a short fall, estimating a five percent chance. Dr. Barnes\\nalso testified that J.J.’s skull fracture “is what we call a linear\\nskull fracture. It’s actually a very common type of traumatic\\ninjury to an infant’s skull due to accidental injury scenarios,\\nlike dropping the baby to the floor or hitting the baby’s head\\nagainst something, but it still doesn’t tell us if it was inten‐\\ntional or accidental.” Dr. Barnes stated it is uncommon for a\\nchild to die from a three or four foot fall. While a bump could\\ncause a simple skull fracture, because of J.J.’s other injuries,\\nnamely the brain swelling and bleeding, something other\\nthan a bump to the head or banging his head against the wall\\nhappened according to Dr. Barnes. Regarding the bleeding\\n\\fNo. 18‐1954 19\\n\\nbetween J.J.’s brain and skull, Dr. Barnes testified that it has\\nbeen reported to be connected with either a lack of oxygen or\\nblood flow to the baby’s brain or where there is malignant\\nbrain swelling from either accidental or non‐accidental\\ncauses. Dr. Barnes went on to testify that J.J. had lung abnor‐\\nmalities suggestive of an improper intubation that could have\\ninterfered with the oxygen to his brain.\\n The second physician, Dr. Joseph Scheller, staff child neu‐\\nrologist at Children’s National Medical Center in Washington,\\nD.C., also disagreed with the State’s experts that J.J. had been\\nshaken and noted the absence of a neck injury. He said J.J. had\\na skull fracture, and “[i]t’s physically impossible to create a\\nskull fracture without force against the outside of the head, so\\nwe are sure that something happened to the outside of this\\nchild’s head that was a force directed against it.” Like Dr.\\nBarnes, he was critical of the State’s medical experts’ testi‐\\nmony analogizing the force to that of a car accident or a multi‐\\nstory fall. He testified that a short fall of two or three feet\\nwould less commonly cause a skull fracture, and it was less\\nlikely to have a skull fracture from a short fall than from being\\nswung or slammed into a hard object. Though Dr. Scheller\\nthought that J.J.’s injuries were more in line with a fall because\\nof the absence of bruising, he later stated it was possible to\\nhave a skull fracture without any bruising. Dr. Scheller testi‐\\nfied, “I believe that the baby did develop the skull fracture,\\nthe brain swelling, and the retinal hemorrhages from a short\\nfall rather than having been maliciously slammed into some‐\\nthing” because “from witnessed short falls, that when babies\\nget a skull fracture, it is in the parietal area … and that’s where\\nbaby Felton’s skull fracture was. And we really didn’t see any\\nevidence of bruising. Again, if a baby’s being held violently\\nand being slammed, then you’re going to look for bruising or\\n\\f20 No. 18‐1954\\n\\nbone injuries somewhere else, and we really didn’t see that.”\\nHe noted a parietal fracture was a common injury in infants\\nand, in his experience, if the injury is not witnessed and there\\nis no other abnormality, the conclusion is that the injury was\\naccidental. As for when J.J. sustained his injuries, Dr. Scheller\\ntestified it could have been three to six hours, maybe twelve\\nhours, but not twenty‐four hours.\\n The final doctor to testify at the hearing was Dr. John Plun‐\\nkett, a forensic pathologist from Minnesota. Dr. Plunkett\\nstated that J.J. was pretty immobile, so “we’re not talking\\nabout him rolling or falling off of some structure. We’re talk‐\\ning about an adult either intentionally or accidentally drop‐\\nping him or throwing him. Those are your possibilities, at\\nleast from the history that I have, so you can’t draw an anal‐\\nogy and just say fall.” Put another way, Dr. Plunkett testified\\nthat J.J.’s fracture was “consistent with an aggressive, mali‐\\ncious act against the baby’s head and it’s also consistent with\\na short fall,” but there was no way to tell absolutely. Similarly,\\nthere was no way to tell just by looking at the injuries whether\\nthey were the result of an accidental or intentional cause ac‐\\ncording to Dr. Plunkett. He stated that he would expect to see\\nother injuries if a child had been swung into a wall like a base‐\\nball bat. On cross‐examination, Dr. Plunkett testified it was\\npossible, though, for a child to be propelled or struck against\\nan object with the same velocity and acceleration that would\\nresult from a three‐and‐a‐half‐foot fall.\\n The state trial court denied Felton’s post‐conviction mo‐\\ntion for relief, analyzing both the performance and prejudice\\nprongs of the ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The Wis‐\\nconsin Court of Appeals similarly denied Felton’s petition,\\n\\fNo. 18‐1954 21\\n\\nconcluding that neither counsel’s failure to object to the pros‐\\necutor’s closing argument statement nor her failure to call\\nmedical experts was prejudicial. The Wisconsin Supreme\\nCourt summarily denied Felton’ petition for review. Felton\\nfiled a petition for federal habeas relief in federal court. The\\ndistrict court denied his petition, but it issued a certificate of\\nappealability. Felton now appeals.\\n II.\\n To succeed on his claim of ineffective assistance of coun‐\\nsel, Felton must show his counsel’s performance was deficient\\nand he was prejudiced as a result. Strickland v. Washington, 466\\nU.S. 668, 687 (1984). We are not required to consider perfor‐\\nmance or prejudice in a particular order or even address “both\\ncomponents of the inquiry if [Felton] makes an insufficient\\nshowing on one.” Id. at 697.\\n We review a district court’s denial of a petition for habeas\\ncorpus de novo and findings of fact for clear error. Barrow v.\\nUchtman, 398 F.3d 597, 602 (7th Cir. 2005). The Antiterrorism\\nand Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) authorizes us to\\ngrant habeas relief only if the state court decision was “con‐\\ntrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of clearly\\nestablished Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court\\nof the United States” or “based on an unreasonable determi‐\\nnation of the facts in the light of the evidence presented in the\\nstate court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). We will consider\\n“the last reasoned opinion on the claim,” which in this case is\\nfrom the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. Woolley v. Rednour, 702\\nF.3d 411, 421 (7th Cir. 2012) (quoting Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501\\nU.S. 797, 803 (1991)). A state court’s application of federal law\\nis unreasonable if it is “more than incorrect; it must have been\\nobjectively unreasonable.” Id. at 420 (citing Wiggins v. Smith,\\n\\f22 No. 18‐1954\\n\\n539 U.S. 510, 520 (2003)); accord Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362,\\n411 (2000). “‘Unreasonable’ in [the AEDPA] context means\\nmore than just incorrect; it means something … lying well\\noutside the boundaries of permissible differences of opinion.”\\nMcGhee v. Dittmann, 794 F.3d 761, 769 (7th Cir. 2015) (quoting\\nCorcoran v. Neal, 783 F.3d 676, 683 (7th Cir. 2015)). “The bar for\\nestablishing that the state court’s application of the Strickland\\n[ineffective assistance of counsel] standard was ‘unreasona‐\\nble,’ is a high one.” Taylor v. Bradley, 448 F.3d 942, 948 (7th Cir.\\n2006). “[A]s long as we are satisfied that the Wisconsin Court\\nof Appeals took the constitutional standard seriously and pro‐\\nduce[d] an answer within the range of defensible positions,\\nwe will affirm the district court’s decision to deny the writ.”\\nId. (citation and internal quotation omitted).\\n Before turning to the merits of Felton’s claim, we must de‐\\ntermine the appropriate standard of review in this case. Felton\\nargues the Wisconsin Court of Appeals is not entitled to\\nAEDPA deference on either the performance or prejudice\\nprongs of Strickland. As for the performance prong, we agree.\\nBecause the Wisconsin Court of Appeals did not address the\\nperformance prong, we are to review counsel’s performance\\nde novo. Woolley, 702 F.3d at 422.\\n Regarding the prejudice prong, Felton argues that our re‐\\nview also should be de novo because the Wisconsin Court of\\nAppeals unreasonably applied Strickland. See Thomas v. Clem‐\\nents, 789 F.3d 760, 767 (7th Cir. 2015) (reviewing state court’s\\nprejudice prong analysis de novo where the court “only used\\ntwo sentences to address the prejudice prong and did not ac‐\\ntually analyze why there was no prejudice”). First, Felton as‐\\nserts the state appellate court unreasonably applied the Strick‐\\n\\fNo. 18‐1954 23\\n\\nland prejudice standard to the facts by not “independently un‐\\ndertaking a complete review and analysis of the trial and\\npostconviction expert testimony.” Felton, however, did not\\npresent this argument to the district court. “[A]rguments in a\\nfederal habeas petition which were not raised in the district\\ncourt are not properly raised for the first time on appeal.”\\nMertz v. Williams, 771 F.3d 1035, 1043 (7th Cir. 2014). “Regard‐\\nless of whether a habeas claim was fairly presented or de‐\\nfaulted in the state courts, if an argument was not presented\\nto the federal district court, it is forfeited in this court.” Frazier\\nv. Varga, 843 F.3d 258, 262 (7th Cir. 2016). By not presenting it\\nto the district court, Felton similarly forfeited his contention\\nthat the Wisconsin Court of Appeals unreasonably applied\\nStrickland by failing to review counsel’s errors cumulatively.\\nId.3\\n As he did argue before the district court, Felton contends\\nthat he is entitled to de novo review because the state court im‐\\nproperly used an outcome‐determinative test in applying\\nStrickland. Concluding counsel’s failure to object to the prose‐\\ncutor’s closing argument “was not prejudicial,” the Wisconsin\\nCourt of Appeals stated, “[W]e do not believe there is a rea‐\\nsonable probability that it affected the outcome of the trial.”\\nThe Wisconsin Court of Appeals’s use of the word “outcome”\\n\\n 3 The State argues Felton did not fairly present to the state court this\\nclaim of the cumulative prejudicial effects of counsel’s errors, citing Black‐\\nmon v. Williams, 823 F.3d 1088, 1100 (7th Cir. 2016), in which a claim was\\nprocedurally defaulted because petitioner did not raise it before the state\\ncourts. While Felton’s only mention of cumulative review before the Wis‐\\nconsin Court of Appeals was in a subheading of his brief stating, “Indi‐\\nvidually or cumulatively, these deficiencies prejudice Felton,” we need\\nnot undertake a procedural default analysis because Felton also did not\\nassert this argument before the district court.\\n\\f24 No. 18‐1954\\n\\ndoes not mean it applied the outcome‐determinative standard\\nthat the Supreme Court declined to adopt in Strickland, par‐\\nticularly because it is modified by no “reasonable probabil‐\\nity.” 466 U.S. at 693 (declining to adopt an outcome‐determi‐\\nnative standard, “that counsel’s deficient conduct more likely\\nthan not altered the outcome in the case.”) (emphasis added);\\nsee Ruhl v. Hardy, 743 F.3d 1083, 1092 (7th Cir. 2014) (summa‐\\nrizing that to establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a de‐\\nfendant must show, in part, that “there is a reasonable proba‐\\nbility that counsel’s errors affected the outcome of the proceed‐\\ning.”) (emphasis added). We are also unpersuaded by Felton’s\\nargument that the state appellate court’s conclusion that “the\\nState’s case did not hinge on House’s testimony” is proof it\\napplied an outcome‐determinative approach. In so stating,\\nthe Wisconsin Court of Appeals was describing House’s testi‐\\nmony in relation to the other evidence presented at trial, in‐\\ncluding the trial evidence undermining House’s credibility. In\\nother words, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals was stating why\\ncounsel’s failure to object did not “undermine confidence in\\nthe outcome” of the trial. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694. This is\\nexactly what the Wisconsin Court of Appeals was required to\\ndo to determine whether there was a “reasonable probability\\nthat, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the\\nproceeding would have been different.” Id. Therefore, our re‐\\nview of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals’s denial of Felton’s\\nineffective assistance of counsel claim based on prejudice is\\n“highly deferential.” Hinesley v. Knight, 837 F.3d 721, 732 (7th\\nCir. 2016) (quoting Burt v. Titlow, 571 U.S. 12, 18 (2013)).\\n Because we will review the prejudice determination of the\\nWisconsin Court of Appeals for whether it was unreasonable\\nin light of the evidence presented, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2), and\\nStrickland’s performance prong de novo, we will first consider\\n\\fNo. 18‐1954 25\\n\\nthe prejudice prong. Only if Felton prevails on the prejudice\\nprong will we need to consider the performance prong. See\\nStrickland, 466 U.S. at 697 (noting “there is no reason for a\\ncourt deciding an ineffective assistance claim … to address\\nboth components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an in‐\\nsufficient showing on one.”).\\n With the standard of review decided, we turn to the prej‐\\nudice prong of Felton’s ineffective assistance claim. To estab‐\\nlish prejudice, Felton must show “that there is a reasonable\\nprobability that, but for counselʹs unprofessional errors, the\\nresult of the proceeding would have been different. A reason‐\\nable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confi‐\\ndence in the outcome.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694. Felton must\\ndo more than show that “it is possible a reasonable doubt\\nmight have been established if counsel acted differently.”\\nHarrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 111 (2011). “Instead, Strick‐\\nland asks whether it is ‘reasonably likely’ the result would\\nhave been different.” Id. (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 696).\\n“The likelihood of a different result must be substantial, not\\njust conceivable.” Id. at 112.\\n Felton argues his trial counsel erred in two ways: by fail‐\\ning to object to the prosecutor’s closing argument statement\\nregarding the availability of a sentence modification for\\nHouse and by failing to call medical experts at trial. We first\\naddress counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s closing\\nargument. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals held counsel’s\\nfailure to object to the prosecutor’s statement was not preju‐\\ndicial. The state appellate court noted House had credibility\\nissues, citing his criminal history, and counsel diminished the\\nimpact of the State’s statement by noting the availability of a\\n\\f26 No. 18‐1954\\n\\nsentence modification in the future. We conclude that this is\\nnot an unreasonable conclusion in light of the facts.\\n House had a host of credibility problems, and the jury was\\naware of these problems. At the time of trial, House was in jail\\nand had nine or ten prior convictions. He was known as a jail‐\\nhouse lawyer, snitch, and scam artist. Moreover, as trial coun‐\\nsel demonstrated through the jailhouse phone calls, House\\nwas willing to reveal information he obtained while in prison\\nto law enforcement for his own benefit and then later lie un‐\\nder oath about doing just that. Whether House received a ben‐\\nefit for his testimony at Felton’s trial did not diminish House’s\\nsignificant credibility problems. Any objection to the prosecu‐\\ntor’s non‐evidentiary statement in closing argument rebuttal\\nwould not have altered House’s testimony about Felton’s con‐\\nfession. The jury also heard Felton’s counsel’s closing argu‐\\nment where she asserted that House did not receive any ben‐\\nefit yet. Therefore, even if counsel erred by not objecting to the\\nprosecutor’s closing argument rebuttal statement, there was\\nnot a substantial likelihood of a different result had counsel\\nobjected, Strickland, 466 U.S. at 696, and we conclude the Wis‐\\nconsin Court of Appeals was not unreasonable in concluding\\nthat Felton was not prejudiced by counsel’s failure to object,\\ncf. Baer v. Neal, 879 F.3d 769, 788 (7th Cir. 2018) (When review‐\\ning a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, “we are to consider\\nthe prosecutorʹs conduct not in isolation, but in the context of\\nthe trial as a whole, to determine if such conduct was so in‐\\nflammatory and prejudicial to the defendant … as to deprive\\nhim of a fair trial.”) (internal quotations and citations omit‐\\nted).\\n Regarding counsel’s other error, Felton argues having ex‐\\nperts to challenge the State’s medical evidence “was essential\\n\\fNo. 18‐1954 27\\n\\nto the defense because Felton said J.J. accidentally slipped and\\nfell in the bathtub. If experts could show the accident as a\\nplausible cause of death, the jury could harbor reasonable\\ndoubt.” In support of his claim of prejudice, Felton also as‐\\nserts that his experts made two key points: first, there was no\\nmedical evidence to support a diagnosis of shaking, and sec‐\\nond, his experts supported his claim that J.J.’s injuries were\\nthe result of a relatively minor fall.4\\n Taking the second point first, Felton’s medical expert tes‐\\ntimony does not support the theory that J.J.’s bathtub slip and\\nfall caused his death. Those experts testified that J.J.’s injuries\\nwere consistent with a fall from two to four feet or striking\\nsomething with the force of a fall from two to four feet. J.J.\\nwas 24.5 inches tall. Even if J.J. slid from the seated position\\nand hit his head in the tub, such a fall would only have been\\nfrom about one foot and would not have been a free fall, but,\\nrather, a slide from the seated position. Therefore, there is not\\na reasonable probability that Felton would not have been con‐\\nvicted because the habeas medical testimony would not have\\nsupported the claim that J.J.’s death was caused by his bath‐\\ntub fall.\\n Furthermore, both the trial and habeas medical experts\\nagreed that J.J. was not mobile at the time of his death, and\\nthere was no evidence at trial that someone fell while holding\\nJ.J. To the extent that Felton’s theory was that someone else\\n\\n\\n 4 While he argued before the district court that his post‐trial experts\\nrebutted the State’s medical expert testimony regarding when J.J.’s inju‐\\nries were incurred, Felton concedes on appeal that neither sides’ experts\\ncould narrow the timing of the injuries to one particular suspect.\\n\\f28 No. 18‐1954\\n\\nhurt J.J. at the playground, trial counsel elicited testimony\\nfrom Dr. Vardis that, hypothetically, J.J.’s injuries could have\\nbeen the result of a playground fall. And the jury heard testi‐\\nmony about Sasha bumping J.J.’s head on the door frame and\\nmedical testimony from Dr. Taylor that such a bump on the\\nleft side of the head would not have caused J.J.’s injuries. Sim‐\\nilarly, Dr. Barnes testified at the habeas hearing that J.J.’s in‐\\njuries were not the result of an accidental bump to his head.\\n Regarding shaking, it is true that two of the State’s experts\\ntestified at trial that J.J. had been shaken, and according to\\nDr. Vardis, shaken severely, and that Felton’s habeas experts\\nrebutted that testimony citing the absence of a neck injury.\\nShaking, however, was not the only evidence the jury heard\\nabout the cause of death. Dr. Witeck testified that the cause of\\nJ.J.’s death was “head injuries due to blunt force trauma.” And\\neven Dr. Vardis testified that J.J. had been slammed into a\\nhard object, which is consistent with the testimony of Dr.\\nBarnes that even if J.J. had been shaken, his injuries were from\\nsome sort of impact and would not have been from shaking\\nalone. In light of this evidence, the Wisconsin Court of Ap‐\\npeals was not unreasonable in its conclusion that “we are not\\nconvinced that the differences in expert medical testimony\\nwere significant enough to undermine our confidence in the\\noutcome or prevent the real controversy from being tried”.5\\n\\n 5To the extent that Felton’s argument that the state appellate court\\nunreasonably applied Strickland’s prejudice standard to the facts is also an\\nargument that the state appellate court’s decision is “based on an unrea‐\\nsonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the\\nstate court proceeding,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), that argument is unavailing.\\nThe Wisconsin Court of Appeals was critical that Felton’s citations did not\\nsupport particular assertions, were only partially true, or were completely\\nabsent in support of certain claims. Because Felton’s brief was required to\\n\\fNo. 18‐1954 29\\n\\n In support of his claim of prejudice, Felton further argues\\nthat House’s testimony corroborated the State’s medical testi‐\\nmony and, in turn, the State’s medical testimony corroborated\\nHouse’s testimony. House’s testimony, however, did not cor‐\\nroborate the medical evidence in the way Felton asserts in his\\nbrief. Without citation to the record, Felton repeatedly states\\nthat House testified that Felton confessed to shaking and\\nslamming J.J. At trial, though, House never testified about\\nshaking, but rather testified that Felton “swung [the baby]\\ninto the bathroom door.” Further, the habeas medical testi‐\\nmony did not undermine House’s testimony, and, in fact, was\\nsupported in part by Dr. Plunkett’s testimony that J.J. could\\nhave been struck with the same force as a three to four foot\\nfall. Even if the habeas medical experts had testified at trial\\nand Felton’s counsel had objected to the prosecutor’s closing\\nargument, it was not reasonably likely the jury’s decision\\nwould have been different. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 696.\\n Finally, as the Wisconsin Court of Appeals noted, counsel\\npresented evidence that others had “custody of [J.J.] on the\\nday he was admitted to the hospital,” and these alleged errors\\ndid not affect that evidence. Similarly, the unfavorable trial\\ntestimony about Felton was unaffected by these alleged er‐\\nrors. Id. (noting that some errors will not affect some of the\\nfactual findings). Felton’s failure to tell anyone about J.J.’s slip\\n\\ncontain “a statement of facts relevant to the issues presented for review,\\nwith appropriate references to the record,” Wis. Stat. 809.19(1)(d) and\\n“[j]udges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in the record,” Gross\\nv. Town of Cicero, 619 F.3d 697, 702 (7th Cir. 2010), the Wisconsin Court of\\nAppeals’s conclusion about a lack of prejudice was not unreasonable. See\\ngenerally United States v. Lewis, 594 F.3d 1270, 1275 (10th Cir. 2010) (“[I]t is\\nnot this court’s duty to scour without guidance a voluminous record for\\nevidence supporting the government’s theory.”).\\n\\f30 No. 18‐1954\\n\\nin the bathtub, including Sasha when she phoned from work\\nor the hospital physicians, his delay in telling the police J.J.\\nfell in the tub, testimony that he was goofing around while his\\nson was in the NICU suffering severe brain trauma, testimony\\nthat Felton stated at the hospital that he did not want to go to\\njail, testimony that he had limited experience caring for J.J. by\\nhimself, and testimony he compelled his cellmate to sign a re‐\\nquest form he had written in an attempt presumably to un‐\\ndermine House were all unaffected by the errors that Felton\\nnow alleges. And as we discussed above, the habeas medical\\ntestimony would not have supported Felton’s claim about the\\ncause of J.J.’s injury. Accordingly, the Wisconsin Court of Ap‐\\npeals did not unreasonably conclude that Felton was not prej‐\\nudiced by counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s state‐\\nment and failure to call medical experts.\\n III.\\n We AFFIRM the denial of Felton’s petition for a writ of\\nhabeas corpus.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4407973/\", \"author_raw\": \"Daniel Anthony Manion\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"RIPPLE"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"MANION"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"BRENNAN"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"RIPPLE\": \", Circuit\", \"MANION\": \", Circuit\", \"BRENNAN\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4630720/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":6,"string":"6"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Jeremiah Felton v. Byran Bartow\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-06-18\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18‐1954\nJEREMIAH FELTON,\n Petitioner‐Appellant,\n v.\n\nBRYAN BARTOW,\n Respondent‐Appellee.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Eastern District of Wisconsin.\n No. 14‐cv‐965 — Nancy Joseph, Magistrate Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED FEBRUARY 22, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 18, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before RIPPLE, MANION, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\n MANION, Circuit Judge. A jury convicted Jeremiah Felton of\nfirst degree intentional homicide in Wisconsin state court for\nthe death of his three‐month‐old son, Jeremiah Felton Jr. (J.J.).\nThe jury heard testimony about the days leading up to J.J.’s\ndeath, such as those who cared for and had contact with him,\nincluding Felton. The jury also heard about Felton’s conver‐\nsations with police, whom he told that J.J. had slipped and hit\nhis head in the bathtub, and with fellow jail inmate, Douglas\n\f2 No. 18‐1954\n\nHouse, who testified that Felton said he had swung J.J. into a\nbathroom door. J.J.’s treating physicians and the medical ex‐\naminer also testified about J.J.’s injuries and cause of death,\nwhich two of the physicians stated, in part, was due to shak‐\ning. The medical examiner concluded that blunt force trauma\nwas the cause of death. The jury found Felton guilty.\n Felton sought post‐conviction relief in the Wisconsin state\ncourt based on ineffective assistance of counsel. In particular,\nFelton cited his attorney’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s\nstatement during closing argument that House could not re‐\nceive a sentence modification for his testimony in Felton’s trial\nand failure to secure medical expert testimony to rebut the\nState’s witnesses. At the post‐conviction hearing, Felton’s\ncounsel testified as well as three medical experts who con‐\ncluded J.J. had not been shaken and J.J.’s injuries were con‐\nsistent with a fall of two to four feet. The state trial court de‐\nnied Felton’s petition, and the Wisconsin Court of Appeals af‐\nfirmed the denial. The Wisconsin Supreme Court summarily\ndenied Felton’s petition for review. Felton sought a writ of ha‐\nbeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the district court. The\ndistrict court denied Felton’s petition, and Felton now appeals\nto this court. Because the decision of the Wisconsin Court of\nAppeals was not unreasonable, Felton’s petition is denied.\n I.\nA. Criminal Trial1\n J.J. Felton was born on February 16, 2008. During his short\nlife, J.J. lived with his mother, Sasha Fulton, and his father,\n\n\n 1Unless otherwise noted, the facts are drawn from the testimony and\nother evidence at Felton’s criminal jury trial.\n\fNo. 18‐1954 3\n\nJeremiah Felton, would sometimes stay with them. Sasha and\nFelton were not married. They had renewed their relationship\nin June 2008, and Felton moved with Sasha and J.J. to a new\napartment the weekend before J.J. died. On Sunday, June 1,\n2008, J.J. spent the day at the park with various family mem‐\nbers, including his parents. Sasha took J.J. home around sup‐\npertime while Felton stayed out until after midnight. That\nnight, Felton stayed with Sasha and J.J. at the new apartment.\nSasha’s cousin, Bryiana Fulton, and her baby also stayed there\nthat night.\n 1. The Day at the Apartment\n The next morning, while Felton slept, Sasha fed and\nplayed with J.J. before going to work shortly before 9 a.m. Bry‐\niana sometimes cared for J.J., but that day, Sasha told her to\nleave him with Felton. It was the first time Sasha left J.J. in\nFelton’s care for the day while she was at work.\n While Felton was home with J.J., different family members\ncame in and out of the apartment throughout the day. Bryiana\nleft the apartment sometime after 9 a.m. When she returned\naround noon, Felton and J.J. were there along with Byrian Ful‐\nton (Bryiana’s brother) and Casey Fulton (Sasha’s brother).\nJ.J. seemed to be acting normally at that time. Bryiana gave\nhim a bottle before leaving around 12:30 p.m. Casey and Byr‐\nian left at the same time, and Felton remained in the apart‐\nment with J.J. Sasha called Felton from work about 2:30 or\n3 p.m., and he told her that J.J. had been sleeping all day.\n Sasha’s fifteen‐year‐old cousin, Anthony Hendrix, came\nby the apartment sometime after his school let out for the day\nat 2:30 p.m. There he found Felton alone in the apartment with\nJ.J., who was sleeping on the couch while Felton was getting\n\f4 No. 18‐1954\n\nout of the shower. Hendrix testified that J.J. cried multiple\ntimes while he was there, and that both he and Felton picked\nhim up. Hendrix put J.J. down in his crib and patted his back.\nJ.J. stopped crying, and Hendrix left soon after.\n When Sasha returned home from work around 5:25 p.m.,\nshe checked on J.J., who was sleeping. She let him sleep; J.J.\nwas a fussy baby, and Sasha did not want to disturb him. Bry‐\niana came back around the same time. Felton asked Sasha to\ndrive him to his friend’s graduation. After eating a sandwich,\nSasha borrowed Bryiana’s car to drive Felton to the gradua‐\ntion ceremony and returned about a half hour to forty\nminutes later. While Sasha and Felton were gone, Bryiana\nstayed at Sasha’s apartment with her son and J.J. When Sasha\nreturned, she did not check on J.J. right away, but let him sleep\nand began cleaning the kitchen and bathroom. About fifteen\nminutes later, she heard J.J. make a funny noise and went to\ncheck on him. There she found J.J. with one eye open and one\neye shut. Sasha cried out that something was wrong. Bryiana\nthought that Sasha was overreacting until she saw J.J. She then\ntold Sasha to call 911 while she attempted to revive J.J.\n 2. At the Hospital\n J.J. was taken by ambulance to St. Vincent Hospital in\nGreen Bay around 7:30 p.m. Dr. John Taylor, pediatric critical\ncare physician, first saw J.J. shortly after he arrived at the hos‐\npital. Dr. Taylor intubated J.J. and ordered x‐rays and a CT\nscan. The CT scan revealed J.J. had a skull fracture just above\nand slightly behind his right ear, specifically his right parietal\nbone, bleeding under his skull and in his brain, and retinal\nhemorrhages. Dr. Taylor told Sasha and Felton he was con‐\ncerned someone had hurt J.J. because there was no record of\na car accident or someone falling or tripping down the stairs\n\fNo. 18‐1954 5\n\nwith their son, and J.J. was not yet rolling or moving by him‐\nself. Sasha told Dr. Taylor that the day before while she had\nbeen carrying J.J. in her left arm, J.J. bumped his head as she\nwalked through the door. Felton did not give any explanation\nto Dr. Taylor.\n A number of family members came to the hospital that\nnight. Some of them played in the halls, including Felton, who\npushed Casey around in a wheelchair. Hospital staff asked\nthem to leave because they were too noisy and disruptive. Fel‐\nton and Sasha were allowed to stay, and they fell asleep in the\nfamily waiting room.\n That same night, the hospital or Brown County Human\nServices contacted the police about J.J.’s serious injuries and\nthe lack of explanation for them. Detective Robert Haglund\nand Detective Walter Wickman of the Green Bay Police De‐\npartment arrived at the hospital around 3 a.m. on Tuesday,\nJune 3. Haglund woke Felton and Sasha. He interviewed\nSasha with a human services representative present, and\nWickman interviewed Felton in a separate room. There Felton\ntold Wickman that he did not know what could have hap‐\npened because J.J. was with him or people they knew. He told\nWickman about Sasha bumping J.J.’s head into the door, but\nprovided no other explanation about how J.J. might have sus‐\ntained his injuries. After interviewing Sasha, Haglund joined\nWickman and Felton and asked Felton what had happened.\nAfter confirming Felton told him the same thing he had just\ntold Wickman, Haglund and Wickman left the hospital.\n Haglund returned to the hospital the next day and spoke\nwith various family members, including Bryiana and Hen‐\ndrix, asking them what might have happened to J.J. He\nlearned about the move to the new apartment on Friday and\n\f6 No. 18‐1954\n\nSaturday and the day at the park on Sunday. At the end of his\ninterviews, Haglund asked the family, including Felton,\nSasha, and Bryiana, to be quiet because they were being noisy\nplaying up and down the halls. Haglund also told them he\nbelieved one of the family members was responsible for J.J.’s\ninjuries and his prime suspects were Felton, Bryiana, and\nSasha because they had been alone with J.J. on Monday. Hag‐\nlund also advised Felton to check in with his probation officer\nas he was required to do if he spoke with law enforcement.\n While at the hospital, Felton stated more than once, “I just\ndon’t want to go to jail.” In one instance, Bryiana testified Fel‐\nton expressed frustration over what he thought was a lack of\ninformation from doctors, and he did not want to hit the doc‐\ntor and go to jail.\n 3. J.J.’s Death and Felton’s Conversation with Police and\n Fellow Inmate\n J.J.’s condition worsened, and he died from his injuries on\nJune 5th. Shortly after his son’s death, Felton went to the\nBrown County Jail on a probation hold. On June 9, 2008, Fel‐\nton asked to talk with police and spoke with Haglund. Felton\ngave Haglund a statement, which Haglund typed and Felton\nread and signed. In that statement, Felton recounted that\naround 2 p.m. on the day J.J. was rushed to the hospital, “I got\nin the bathtub with my baby and started giving him a bath.\nThere was only two inches of water. He was sitting between\nmy legs and his butt slipped forward and his head came back‐\nwards and his head hit the bottom of the tub between my legs.\nHis right ear went in the water, but his face didn’t go under\nthe water. He started crying. I wiped him off, got him dressed,\nand gave him a bottle, patted him to sleep while he was lying\non the couch.” Felton told Haglund he felt it in his legs when\n\fNo. 18‐1954 7\n\nJ.J. hit the bottom of the tub and J.J. hit the tub “kind of hard.”\nFelton said he was going to tell Haglund about this in the hos‐\npital, but Haglund made him nervous.\n Haglund spoke again with Felton on June 12th telling him\nthe doctors said that the slip in the tub could not have caused\nJ.J.’s injuries. When Haglund left the interview room, Felton\nstood by the door trying to listen to what was being said out‐\nside the room, which Haglund stated witnesses typically do\nnot do. After speaking with Felton on June 12th, Haglund sent\nthe case file over to the District Attorney’s Office recommend‐\ning Felton be charged with first degree intentional homicide\nfor J.J.’s death. On June 13, 2008, the Green Bay Police Depart‐\nment issued a press release about its request and stated J.J.\nhad suffered a skull fracture from blunt force trauma. The\npress release did not say where the fracture was located on\nthe skull.\n Meanwhile, Douglas House, one of Felton’s fellow in‐\nmates at the Brown County Jail, sent police a request form,\notherwise known as a “kite,” dated June 13, 2008. House had\nnine to ten prior convictions and had a reputation as both a\njailhouse lawyer and a snitch. House’s kite stated, “I have con‐\nclusive evidence to convict Jeremiah Felton, Sr. in the death of\nhis infant son, Junior. That was caused by right side trauma\nto head behind right ear. Will only come out if called out as\nan attorney visit.”\n Haglund spoke with House on June 16th. (It was the not\nthe first time Haglund and House spoke with one another;\nthey had previously talked about other cases.) House told\nHaglund that when Felton approached him, Felton had not\nyet been charged with J.J.’s death, and they discussed the time\nconstraints for Felton’s probation hold. After that, Felton told\n\f8 No. 18‐1954\n\nhim about J.J. House told Haglund that Felton had told him\nthat J.J. was getting on his nerves, so he swung J.J. into the\nbathroom door hitting the right side of J.J.’s head behind his\near. House also asked Haglund to look into whether the police\nwere harassing his children.\n House spoke again with Haglund on June 23rd. Haglund\ntold House that the police were watching another house near\nhis children. House, in turn, told Haglund that Felton told\nhim that the police questioned him about J.J. and he planned\nto blame it on his girlfriend’s sister. In addition to telling Hag‐\nlund about Felton, House asked Haglund if he could look into\npolice harassing his son and daughter. Haglund checked into\nthis and later told House that the police were not watching his\nkids, but were watching a nearby house.\n 4. Other Criminal Trial Testimony\n Felton was charged with first degree intentional homicide\nin J.J.’s death, and the case proceeded to trial. Several wit‐\nnesses, including Sasha and Felton’s mother, testified that J.J.\nwas a fussy baby. On one occasion, Bryiana “popped” J.J. and\nher son on their diapers when they were “both a little crabby.”\nSasha testified that she did not like that Bryiana spanked J.J.,\nbut she was very close with her cousin and trusted her to care\nfor J.J. As for Felton, Sasha and others testified that he was\ngood with his children and nieces and nephews, and they also\ntestified that if J.J. got fussy, Felton would pass J.J. to someone\nelse or put him in his car seat until he stopped crying.\n House testified at trial:\n A. Well, he [Felton] said that he had been home, I be‐\n lieve he said he was home with his girlfriend’s sister,\n or wife’s sister, one or the other, and that he was giving\n\fNo. 18‐1954 9\n\n the baby a bath, and the baby slipped. That the baby\n had either gotten water in his eyes or mouth and\n started crying, and he tried for a long period of time to\n quiet the baby down, but that didn’t happen.\n Q. What else did he continue to tell you what hap‐\n pened?\n A. He had gotten frustrated and was holding the baby,\n and then swung the baby into the bathroom door. The\n baby, Jeremiah, hit his head on the right side, and he\n pointed to the left ‐ ‐ or the right side behind his ear of\n where the baby hit his head.\n Q. I was going to ask, how do you know it was the right\n side?\n A. Well, as he was telling me, he made the motion, and\n he said he was holding the baby, swung the baby, and\n the baby hit his head, and I said where, and he said\n right here, and he pointed right behind his head.\n …\n Q. Did he say anything else to you after ‐ ‐\n A. He did. You know, he made it sound like he was\n going to put the blame on the ‐ ‐ the girlfriend’s sister,\n and he said he ‐ ‐ he also said you know, for a substan‐\n tial amount of time that baby shut up so he knew some‐\n thing was wrong.\n House found Felton’s demeanor odd because “it was like\nthere was no concern whatsoever for the baby.” House also\ntold the jury about Felton’s confession and identified Felton\nin the courtroom. He testified that after Felton was charged,\n\f10 No. 18‐1954\n\nFelton approached House about the kite and asked why\nHouse snitched on him.\n On cross‐examination, House denied ever talking with his\nattorney about getting anything in return for information he\nhad about Felton. Felton’s counsel impeached House by play‐\ning two recorded telephone conversations that House had\nwhile in the Brown County Jail. The first call was between\nHouse and his attorney. During that call, House’s attorney\ntold him she had spoken with Haglund who said he was un‐\nsure he could do anything for House unless House testified in\nFelton’s case. House’s attorney also discussed information\nHouse had about another homicide. The second call was be‐\ntween House and one of his daughters. House’s daughter told\nhim that Haglund had said House needed to testify “against\n[sic] for the baby or something.” On redirect, House testified\nhis case was over and he did not receive any consideration in\nhis case for his testimony in Felton’s trial.\n Felton called his Brown County Jail cellmate, Ishtayopi\nJones, to testify. Jones came to the jail on June 14th. He was\nfamiliar with House because they had met previously, though\nhe tried to stay away from House because his family warned\nhim that House was a “con artist.” Jones stated House ex‐\npressed concern to him when he learned that Jones was room‐\ning with Felton, though House did not tell Jones why. Jones\nsaid he learned about Felton’s case from the television. Jones\nstated he did talk with Felton about House and what a “big\ntroublemaker” and “scam artist” he was.\n On cross‐examination, the prosecutor asked Jones about a\nkite he signed and dated October 8, 2008. The kite stated, in\npart, “I did not and will not try and tell on Jeremiah Felton.”\nWhen asked at trial, “What’s there to tell on Jeremiah Felton,”\n\fNo. 18‐1954 11\n\nJones responded, “Nothing, I guess.” The prosecutor further\nquestioned Jones about the kite, and Jones’s testimony made\nit clear that he knew nothing about Felton’s case from Felton\nor House and that Felton, not Jones, wrote the kite. When\nasked why he signed the request form, Jones responded,\n“‘Cause [Felton] looked pretty mad at me, then I just told him\nI’d sign it and that if he needs me to testify, I’ll do that for\nhim.” Jones also testified he told Haglund that Felton had\nnever talked with Felton about his case and that House “is just\nlying and making stuff up to get himself out of what situation\nhe’s in right now.”\n 5. Medical Testimony\n Also at trial, the State called three physicians, two of J.J.’s\ntreating physicians and the medical examiner, to present tes‐\ntimony about J.J.’s injuries and cause of death. Dr. John Tay‐\nlor, who first treated J.J. upon his arrival at the hospital, testi‐\nfied that both J.J.’s fracture and retinal hemorrhaging were the\nresult of a significant amount of force, such as a car accident.\nIn J.J.’s case, Dr. Taylor suspected “most likely that this was a\nresult of significant shaking.” Dr. Taylor stated that a bump\nlike Sasha bumping J.J.’s head in the doorway would not ac‐\ncount for J.J.’s injuries because the bump was on J.J.’s left side,\nthe force would have been insufficient, and J.J. was eating,\nsleeping, awakening, and playing in an age‐appropriate way\nafter that. He also testified that it is difficult to establish a time\nframe for when the injuries were sustained. According to\nDr. Taylor, it could be at the longest a day, but he believed it\nwas within an hour or two of the injuries presenting them‐\nselves.\n A couple hypotheticals were posed to Dr. Taylor while he\nwas testifying. The prosecutor asked him about a child J.J.’s\n\f12 No. 18‐1954\n\nsize slipping in the bathtub between someone else’s legs and\nhitting his head. Dr. Taylor responded that the distance of the\nfall would not have caused the skull fracture, hemorrhages,\nand bruising in the back of the eye. He stated that J.J.’s injuries\nwere more consistent with his head being swung into a door\nthan falling in a bathtub. Felton’s counsel asked whether, hy‐\npothetically, those injuries could have resulted from someone\nfalling with J.J. at the playground. Dr. Taylor responded that\nit was “[e]xtraordinarily unlikely, but … there was a\nminiscule possibility.”\n Another of J.J.’s treating physicians, Dr. Ralph Vardis, also\ntestified. He concluded that J.J.’s injuries were consistent with\nbeing violently shaken and slammed into a hard surface. On\ncross‐examination, Dr. Vardis stated that the injuries could\nhave been caused by a fifteen‐year‐old so long as it was vio‐\nlent and intentional. Dr. Vardis testified about the progression\nof J.J.’s symptoms, namely the brain swelling, and concluded\nthat J.J. was so severely shaken that his brain completely died.\nHe said J.J.’s brain bleeding and skull fracture were not likely\ncaused by a short fall, but rather “[t]he only way you can get\nthe kind of findings that we saw is if the height was one to\ntwo stories from the top of a building.” According to Dr. Var‐\ndis, some of J.J.’s bleeding was due to the skull fracture and\nsome of the bleeding was due to the shaking. He acknowl‐\nedged on cross‐examination that there was a disagreement\nbetween his opinion regarding J.J.’s cause of death, i.e. shaken\nbaby syndrome, and the medical examiner’s conclusion in the\nautopsy report, i.e. head injuries due to blunt force trauma.\nAs for timing, Dr. Vardis noted that there is no way to tell\nwhen the injuries occurred. He stated that the injury could not\nhave happened on Sunday, but it could have happened be‐\ntween five minutes to twelve hours from when the symptoms\n\fNo. 18‐1954 13\n\nwere evident. He also expected the same physical findings if\nit had taken place at 1 p.m. or 5 p.m. the day J.J. came to the\nhospital.\n The third doctor to testify at trial was Dr. Mark Witeck. Dr.\nWiteck, a forensic pathologist, served as the medical examiner\nfor Brown County. He performed the autopsy on J.J. Based on\nhis examination, Dr. Witeck concluded that J.J. died of “cra‐\nnial cerebral trauma, in other words, head injuries due to\nblunt force trauma.” Dr. Witeck testified that J.J. was just un‐\nder 15 pounds and was 24.5 inches long, had no external inju‐\nries, including bruises, and his anterior fontanel, commonly\nreferred to as the soft spot in the front of the head, was bulg‐\ning outward. This was consistent with brain swelling, and the\nseverity and global nature of the swelling was consistent with\na head injury. J.J. had fractures on the right side and front base\nof his skull in “what’s called the orbital plate, that’s the little\nbone plate that’s just above the eye.” There was also a blood\nclot and bleeding on the surface of the right side of the brain.\nDr. Witeck stated “that requires a lot of trauma to the head to\nget that kind of bleeding.” Dr. Witeck testified J.J.’s brain\nbleeding was consistent with the fracture. While he stated eye\nhemorrhages are often seen in children who are shaken, he\ndid not opine whether J.J. had been shaken.\n According to Dr. Witeck, the fracture was consistent with\nhaving been caused by blunt force trauma. This means J.J.’s\nhead was hit with something or against something, though\nthere was no way to know whether it was a single blow or\nmultiple blows. He also said J.J.’s injuries were consistent\nwith being swung into an object with significant force.\nDr. Witeck testified J.J.’s fractures were not consistent with a\nbaby standing and falling to the floor, but were consistent\n\f14 No. 18‐1954\n\nwith a fall only from a large height, like off of a one‐ or two‐\nstory building. When asked whether a child of 24.5 inches tall\nsitting in a bathtub, slipping, and hitting his head on the bath‐\ntub could cause the injuries that he saw, Dr. Witeck re‐\nsponded, “Not at all.” On cross‐examination, Dr. Witeck tes‐\ntified a premature birth could play a part in a child’s suscep‐\ntibility to fracture.\n Felton did not call any medical experts to testify on his be‐\nhalf. (As discussed below, his attorney consulted with her\nphysician husband and a medical student, but did not call ei‐\nther as witnesses at trial.) Other than the testimony elicited\nfrom the State’s medical experts on cross‐examination, Felton\ndid not present any medical evidence at trial.\n 6. Jury Instructions, Closing Arguments, and Verdict\n After the close of evidence, the trial judge instructed the\njury. In part, the judge instructed, “Consider only the evi‐\ndence received during this trial as given to you by these in‐\nstructions, and from these alone, guided by your soundest\nreason and best judgment, reach your verdict.” The judge also\ninstructed, “Remarks of the attorneys are not evidence. If the\nremarks suggested certain facts not in evidence, disregard the\nsuggestion. In a few moments, you will hear the closing argu‐\nments of the attorneys. Consider carefully the closing argu‐\nments of the attorneys, but their arguments and conclusions\nand opinions are not evidence. Draw your own conclusions\nfrom the evidence and decide upon your verdict according to\nthe evidence and the instructions given you by the court.” Af‐\nter instructions, the prosecutor and Felton’s counsel pre‐\nsented their closing arguments to the jury.\n\fNo. 18‐1954 15\n\n During closing arguments, the prosecutor argued in part:\n What House is testifying has to be the truth … what\n did he get for testifying on October 21st or 22nd, 2009?\n The answer is nothing. Absolutely nothing. Is there a\n case pending against him? No. Long gone. Over. Done\n with. There’s nothing that House was going to gain by\n testifying. Because his case was over. It was done. Per‐\n haps, just maybe, perhaps, he testifies because he was\n subpoenaed by the state and maybe, even somebody,\n even a criminal like Doug House, can do the right thing\n once in a while.\n In response, Felton’s counsel stated:\n And by the way, I am going to set the record straight.\n State said, well, his case is settled. He didn’t get any\n concessions. Cooperation with law enforcement, that\n matter can be reopened any time for a sentence modi‐\n fication. So the fact that he hasn’t received any benefit\n yet, it might be ‘cause we had to wait for this case to go\n forward. Doesn’t mean he’s not getting it. It means he\n hasn’t gotten it yet.\n And the prosecutor responded in the State’s rebuttal:\n Mr. House has absolutely nothing to gain here. He was\n honest with you. His case is closed. He can’t receive\n anything for his testimony at this point. … [H]e won’t\n gain anything, no advantages from the state. Just a\n lightening of his conscience. … And he’s received no\n consideration for this. His case is closed. Once again,\n it’s done.\n Felton’s counsel did not object to this latter statement.\n(Several months later, House received a sentence reduction\n\f16 No. 18‐1954\n\nfor his testimony at Felton’s trial, though the State remained\nsilent on that motion.) After deliberating for about four hours,\nthe jury found Felton guilty of first degree intentional homi‐\ncide. Felton was sentenced to life imprisonment.\nB. Post‐conviction Proceedings\n Felton filed a post‐conviction motion asserting ineffective\nassistance of counsel based on two alleged errors. First, he ar‐\ngued that his attorney erred by not securing medical experts\nto rebut the State’s medical testimony at trial. Second, Felton\nargued his attorney erred by not objecting to the prosecutor’s\nclosing argument rebuttal statement that House would re‐\nceive no benefit from his testimony. 2\n 1. Felton’s Counsel\n The state trial court conducted a hearing on Felton’s mo‐\ntion. There Felton’s trial counsel testified. Felton was first rep‐\nresented by a public defender, and counsel began to represent\nFelton after he and his family privately retained her. While\nthe original agreement was that she would receive $15,000 to\ntake the case through trial, she essentially represented Felton\npro‐bono receiving only $750 in payments. Despite a lack of\ncompensation, counsel continued to represent Felton because\nshe felt strongly about his case. Financial constraints, though,\nimpacted her decision about medical experts. Counsel testi‐\nfied that she did not hire medical experts because of the ex‐\npense (the two out‐of‐state experts she contacted both wanted\na minimum $2,500 retainer, and she never sought funding\n\n 2Felton also invoked the state trial court’s discretionary power to\ngrant him post‐conviction relief in the interest of justice asserting the jury\ndid not have the opportunity to hear the medical testimony and was mis‐\nled by the prosecutor’s closing argument statements about House.\n\fNo. 18‐1954 17\n\nthrough the state public defender’s office). Counsel also\nstated that she did not think that “hired guns” would play\nwell to a Green Bay jury. Instead, she researched medical lit‐\nerature and consulted her husband, a general internist who\nspecialized in endocrinology, and a medical student, who was\nworking for her husband, about the case. The medical student\nhad relationships with physicians at Milwaukee Children’s\nHospital and presented J.J.’s file to one of the doctors there.\nThat doctor said that the race of the family was the first thing\nat which he would look. This raised red flags for counsel, and\nshe did not pursue an evaluation of the case from that doctor.\nFinally, when asked, counsel testified she was aware of State\nv. Edmunds, 746 N.W.2d 590 (Wis. 2008), in which the Wiscon‐\nsin Supreme Court granted a new trial to a defendant based\non newly discovered evidence rebutting the shaken baby syn‐\ndrome theory. Counsel stated she did not contact any of the\nEdmunds experts.\n Regarding House, counsel said she repeatedly argued to\nthe jury why it should not believe House. She also noted she\nworked hard to discredit Detective Haglund, including ques‐\ntioning him about any concessions for House, such as check‐\ning on the surveillance of his daughter. She also explored al‐\nternate avenues from which House could have learned about\nthe case, such as the Green Bay Police Department press re‐\nlease. She stated she made the strategic decision not to object\nto the prosecutor’s closing argument rebuttal statement about\nHouse because she concluded it was better in the face of the\njury not to object. Moreover, counsel noted that she “objected\nby giving a narration of my objection, rather than saying, ob‐\njection.” In other words, she described to the jury House\ncould be entitled to a sentence modification even if he had not\nreceived one yet.\n\f18 No. 18‐1954\n\n 2. Post‐Trial Medical Experts\n Felton also called three medical experts to testify at his\npost‐conviction hearing. These physicians were critical of the\nState’s medical experts in two key respects: they concluded\nJ.J.’s injuries were not from shaking and his injuries could\nhave been the result of a short fall.\n The first doctor to testify was Dr. Patrick Barnes, a pediat‐\nric radiologist and neuroradiologist from Stanford University\nSchool of Medicine. Dr. Barnes disagreed with the State’s ex‐\nperts that J.J. had been shaken. He noted that J.J. would have\nsuffered a neck injury if he had been shaken. Moreover,\nDr. Barnes stated that even if J.J. had been shaken, his injuries\nwould have resulted from some sort of impact and not shak‐\ning alone. He also strongly disagreed with the State’s experts\nabout J.J.’s injuries being equivalent to those of a multi‐story\nfall. Rather, Dr. Barnes testified that J.J.’s fracture was a classic\nexample of a fall between two and three feet, such as a child\nfalling while being held by a standing adult. He stated,\nthough, J.J.’s fracture and other injuries were less likely a re‐\nsult of a short fall, estimating a five percent chance. Dr. Barnes\nalso testified that J.J.’s skull fracture “is what we call a linear\nskull fracture. It’s actually a very common type of traumatic\ninjury to an infant’s skull due to accidental injury scenarios,\nlike dropping the baby to the floor or hitting the baby’s head\nagainst something, but it still doesn’t tell us if it was inten‐\ntional or accidental.” Dr. Barnes stated it is uncommon for a\nchild to die from a three or four foot fall. While a bump could\ncause a simple skull fracture, because of J.J.’s other injuries,\nnamely the brain swelling and bleeding, something other\nthan a bump to the head or banging his head against the wall\nhappened according to Dr. Barnes. Regarding the bleeding\n\fNo. 18‐1954 19\n\nbetween J.J.’s brain and skull, Dr. Barnes testified that it has\nbeen reported to be connected with either a lack of oxygen or\nblood flow to the baby’s brain or where there is malignant\nbrain swelling from either accidental or non‐accidental\ncauses. Dr. Barnes went on to testify that J.J. had lung abnor‐\nmalities suggestive of an improper intubation that could have\ninterfered with the oxygen to his brain.\n The second physician, Dr. Joseph Scheller, staff child neu‐\nrologist at Children’s National Medical Center in Washington,\nD.C., also disagreed with the State’s experts that J.J. had been\nshaken and noted the absence of a neck injury. He said J.J. had\na skull fracture, and “[i]t’s physically impossible to create a\nskull fracture without force against the outside of the head, so\nwe are sure that something happened to the outside of this\nchild’s head that was a force directed against it.” Like Dr.\nBarnes, he was critical of the State’s medical experts’ testi‐\nmony analogizing the force to that of a car accident or a multi‐\nstory fall. He testified that a short fall of two or three feet\nwould less commonly cause a skull fracture, and it was less\nlikely to have a skull fracture from a short fall than from being\nswung or slammed into a hard object. Though Dr. Scheller\nthought that J.J.’s injuries were more in line with a fall because\nof the absence of bruising, he later stated it was possible to\nhave a skull fracture without any bruising. Dr. Scheller testi‐\nfied, “I believe that the baby did develop the skull fracture,\nthe brain swelling, and the retinal hemorrhages from a short\nfall rather than having been maliciously slammed into some‐\nthing” because “from witnessed short falls, that when babies\nget a skull fracture, it is in the parietal area … and that’s where\nbaby Felton’s skull fracture was. And we really didn’t see any\nevidence of bruising. Again, if a baby’s being held violently\nand being slammed, then you’re going to look for bruising or\n\f20 No. 18‐1954\n\nbone injuries somewhere else, and we really didn’t see that.”\nHe noted a parietal fracture was a common injury in infants\nand, in his experience, if the injury is not witnessed and there\nis no other abnormality, the conclusion is that the injury was\naccidental. As for when J.J. sustained his injuries, Dr. Scheller\ntestified it could have been three to six hours, maybe twelve\nhours, but not twenty‐four hours.\n The final doctor to testify at the hearing was Dr. John Plun‐\nkett, a forensic pathologist from Minnesota. Dr. Plunkett\nstated that J.J. was pretty immobile, so “we’re not talking\nabout him rolling or falling off of some structure. We’re talk‐\ning about an adult either intentionally or accidentally drop‐\nping him or throwing him. Those are your possibilities, at\nleast from the history that I have, so you can’t draw an anal‐\nogy and just say fall.” Put another way, Dr. Plunkett testified\nthat J.J.’s fracture was “consistent with an aggressive, mali‐\ncious act against the baby’s head and it’s also consistent with\na short fall,” but there was no way to tell absolutely. Similarly,\nthere was no way to tell just by looking at the injuries whether\nthey were the result of an accidental or intentional cause ac‐\ncording to Dr. Plunkett. He stated that he would expect to see\nother injuries if a child had been swung into a wall like a base‐\nball bat. On cross‐examination, Dr. Plunkett testified it was\npossible, though, for a child to be propelled or struck against\nan object with the same velocity and acceleration that would\nresult from a three‐and‐a‐half‐foot fall.\n The state trial court denied Felton’s post‐conviction mo‐\ntion for relief, analyzing both the performance and prejudice\nprongs of the ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The Wis‐\nconsin Court of Appeals similarly denied Felton’s petition,\n\fNo. 18‐1954 21\n\nconcluding that neither counsel’s failure to object to the pros‐\necutor’s closing argument statement nor her failure to call\nmedical experts was prejudicial. The Wisconsin Supreme\nCourt summarily denied Felton’ petition for review. Felton\nfiled a petition for federal habeas relief in federal court. The\ndistrict court denied his petition, but it issued a certificate of\nappealability. Felton now appeals.\n II.\n To succeed on his claim of ineffective assistance of coun‐\nsel, Felton must show his counsel’s performance was deficient\nand he was prejudiced as a result. Strickland v. Washington, 466\nU.S. 668, 687 (1984). We are not required to consider perfor‐\nmance or prejudice in a particular order or even address “both\ncomponents of the inquiry if [Felton] makes an insufficient\nshowing on one.” Id. at 697.\n We review a district court’s denial of a petition for habeas\ncorpus de novo and findings of fact for clear error. Barrow v.\nUchtman, 398 F.3d 597, 602 (7th Cir. 2005). The Antiterrorism\nand Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) authorizes us to\ngrant habeas relief only if the state court decision was “con‐\ntrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of clearly\nestablished Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court\nof the United States” or “based on an unreasonable determi‐\nnation of the facts in the light of the evidence presented in the\nstate court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). We will consider\n“the last reasoned opinion on the claim,” which in this case is\nfrom the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. Woolley v. Rednour, 702\nF.3d 411, 421 (7th Cir. 2012) (quoting Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501\nU.S. 797, 803 (1991)). A state court’s application of federal law\nis unreasonable if it is “more than incorrect; it must have been\nobjectively unreasonable.” Id. at 420 (citing Wiggins v. Smith,\n\f22 No. 18‐1954\n\n539 U.S. 510, 520 (2003)); accord Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362,\n411 (2000). “‘Unreasonable’ in [the AEDPA] context means\nmore than just incorrect; it means something … lying well\noutside the boundaries of permissible differences of opinion.”\nMcGhee v. Dittmann, 794 F.3d 761, 769 (7th Cir. 2015) (quoting\nCorcoran v. Neal, 783 F.3d 676, 683 (7th Cir. 2015)). “The bar for\nestablishing that the state court’s application of the Strickland\n[ineffective assistance of counsel] standard was ‘unreasona‐\nble,’ is a high one.” Taylor v. Bradley, 448 F.3d 942, 948 (7th Cir.\n2006). “[A]s long as we are satisfied that the Wisconsin Court\nof Appeals took the constitutional standard seriously and pro‐\nduce[d] an answer within the range of defensible positions,\nwe will affirm the district court’s decision to deny the writ.”\nId. (citation and internal quotation omitted).\n Before turning to the merits of Felton’s claim, we must de‐\ntermine the appropriate standard of review in this case. Felton\nargues the Wisconsin Court of Appeals is not entitled to\nAEDPA deference on either the performance or prejudice\nprongs of Strickland. As for the performance prong, we agree.\nBecause the Wisconsin Court of Appeals did not address the\nperformance prong, we are to review counsel’s performance\nde novo. Woolley, 702 F.3d at 422.\n Regarding the prejudice prong, Felton argues that our re‐\nview also should be de novo because the Wisconsin Court of\nAppeals unreasonably applied Strickland. See Thomas v. Clem‐\nents, 789 F.3d 760, 767 (7th Cir. 2015) (reviewing state court’s\nprejudice prong analysis de novo where the court “only used\ntwo sentences to address the prejudice prong and did not ac‐\ntually analyze why there was no prejudice”). First, Felton as‐\nserts the state appellate court unreasonably applied the Strick‐\n\fNo. 18‐1954 23\n\nland prejudice standard to the facts by not “independently un‐\ndertaking a complete review and analysis of the trial and\npostconviction expert testimony.” Felton, however, did not\npresent this argument to the district court. “[A]rguments in a\nfederal habeas petition which were not raised in the district\ncourt are not properly raised for the first time on appeal.”\nMertz v. Williams, 771 F.3d 1035, 1043 (7th Cir. 2014). “Regard‐\nless of whether a habeas claim was fairly presented or de‐\nfaulted in the state courts, if an argument was not presented\nto the federal district court, it is forfeited in this court.” Frazier\nv. Varga, 843 F.3d 258, 262 (7th Cir. 2016). By not presenting it\nto the district court, Felton similarly forfeited his contention\nthat the Wisconsin Court of Appeals unreasonably applied\nStrickland by failing to review counsel’s errors cumulatively.\nId.3\n As he did argue before the district court, Felton contends\nthat he is entitled to de novo review because the state court im‐\nproperly used an outcome‐determinative test in applying\nStrickland. Concluding counsel’s failure to object to the prose‐\ncutor’s closing argument “was not prejudicial,” the Wisconsin\nCourt of Appeals stated, “[W]e do not believe there is a rea‐\nsonable probability that it affected the outcome of the trial.”\nThe Wisconsin Court of Appeals’s use of the word “outcome”\n\n 3 The State argues Felton did not fairly present to the state court this\nclaim of the cumulative prejudicial effects of counsel’s errors, citing Black‐\nmon v. Williams, 823 F.3d 1088, 1100 (7th Cir. 2016), in which a claim was\nprocedurally defaulted because petitioner did not raise it before the state\ncourts. While Felton’s only mention of cumulative review before the Wis‐\nconsin Court of Appeals was in a subheading of his brief stating, “Indi‐\nvidually or cumulatively, these deficiencies prejudice Felton,” we need\nnot undertake a procedural default analysis because Felton also did not\nassert this argument before the district court.\n\f24 No. 18‐1954\n\ndoes not mean it applied the outcome‐determinative standard\nthat the Supreme Court declined to adopt in Strickland, par‐\nticularly because it is modified by no “reasonable probabil‐\nity.” 466 U.S. at 693 (declining to adopt an outcome‐determi‐\nnative standard, “that counsel’s deficient conduct more likely\nthan not altered the outcome in the case.”) (emphasis added);\nsee Ruhl v. Hardy, 743 F.3d 1083, 1092 (7th Cir. 2014) (summa‐\nrizing that to establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a de‐\nfendant must show, in part, that “there is a reasonable proba‐\nbility that counsel’s errors affected the outcome of the proceed‐\ning.”) (emphasis added). We are also unpersuaded by Felton’s\nargument that the state appellate court’s conclusion that “the\nState’s case did not hinge on House’s testimony” is proof it\napplied an outcome‐determinative approach. In so stating,\nthe Wisconsin Court of Appeals was describing House’s testi‐\nmony in relation to the other evidence presented at trial, in‐\ncluding the trial evidence undermining House’s credibility. In\nother words, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals was stating why\ncounsel’s failure to object did not “undermine confidence in\nthe outcome” of the trial. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694. This is\nexactly what the Wisconsin Court of Appeals was required to\ndo to determine whether there was a “reasonable probability\nthat, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the\nproceeding would have been different.” Id. Therefore, our re‐\nview of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals’s denial of Felton’s\nineffective assistance of counsel claim based on prejudice is\n“highly deferential.” Hinesley v. Knight, 837 F.3d 721, 732 (7th\nCir. 2016) (quoting Burt v. Titlow, 571 U.S. 12, 18 (2013)).\n Because we will review the prejudice determination of the\nWisconsin Court of Appeals for whether it was unreasonable\nin light of the evidence presented, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2), and\nStrickland’s performance prong de novo, we will first consider\n\fNo. 18‐1954 25\n\nthe prejudice prong. Only if Felton prevails on the prejudice\nprong will we need to consider the performance prong. See\nStrickland, 466 U.S. at 697 (noting “there is no reason for a\ncourt deciding an ineffective assistance claim … to address\nboth components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an in‐\nsufficient showing on one.”).\n With the standard of review decided, we turn to the prej‐\nudice prong of Felton’s ineffective assistance claim. To estab‐\nlish prejudice, Felton must show “that there is a reasonable\nprobability that, but for counselʹs unprofessional errors, the\nresult of the proceeding would have been different. A reason‐\nable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confi‐\ndence in the outcome.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694. Felton must\ndo more than show that “it is possible a reasonable doubt\nmight have been established if counsel acted differently.”\nHarrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 111 (2011). “Instead, Strick‐\nland asks whether it is ‘reasonably likely’ the result would\nhave been different.” Id. (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 696).\n“The likelihood of a different result must be substantial, not\njust conceivable.” Id. at 112.\n Felton argues his trial counsel erred in two ways: by fail‐\ning to object to the prosecutor’s closing argument statement\nregarding the availability of a sentence modification for\nHouse and by failing to call medical experts at trial. We first\naddress counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s closing\nargument. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals held counsel’s\nfailure to object to the prosecutor’s statement was not preju‐\ndicial. The state appellate court noted House had credibility\nissues, citing his criminal history, and counsel diminished the\nimpact of the State’s statement by noting the availability of a\n\f26 No. 18‐1954\n\nsentence modification in the future. We conclude that this is\nnot an unreasonable conclusion in light of the facts.\n House had a host of credibility problems, and the jury was\naware of these problems. At the time of trial, House was in jail\nand had nine or ten prior convictions. He was known as a jail‐\nhouse lawyer, snitch, and scam artist. Moreover, as trial coun‐\nsel demonstrated through the jailhouse phone calls, House\nwas willing to reveal information he obtained while in prison\nto law enforcement for his own benefit and then later lie un‐\nder oath about doing just that. Whether House received a ben‐\nefit for his testimony at Felton’s trial did not diminish House’s\nsignificant credibility problems. Any objection to the prosecu‐\ntor’s non‐evidentiary statement in closing argument rebuttal\nwould not have altered House’s testimony about Felton’s con‐\nfession. The jury also heard Felton’s counsel’s closing argu‐\nment where she asserted that House did not receive any ben‐\nefit yet. Therefore, even if counsel erred by not objecting to the\nprosecutor’s closing argument rebuttal statement, there was\nnot a substantial likelihood of a different result had counsel\nobjected, Strickland, 466 U.S. at 696, and we conclude the Wis‐\nconsin Court of Appeals was not unreasonable in concluding\nthat Felton was not prejudiced by counsel’s failure to object,\ncf. Baer v. Neal, 879 F.3d 769, 788 (7th Cir. 2018) (When review‐\ning a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, “we are to consider\nthe prosecutorʹs conduct not in isolation, but in the context of\nthe trial as a whole, to determine if such conduct was so in‐\nflammatory and prejudicial to the defendant … as to deprive\nhim of a fair trial.”) (internal quotations and citations omit‐\nted).\n Regarding counsel’s other error, Felton argues having ex‐\nperts to challenge the State’s medical evidence “was essential\n\fNo. 18‐1954 27\n\nto the defense because Felton said J.J. accidentally slipped and\nfell in the bathtub. If experts could show the accident as a\nplausible cause of death, the jury could harbor reasonable\ndoubt.” In support of his claim of prejudice, Felton also as‐\nserts that his experts made two key points: first, there was no\nmedical evidence to support a diagnosis of shaking, and sec‐\nond, his experts supported his claim that J.J.’s injuries were\nthe result of a relatively minor fall.4\n Taking the second point first, Felton’s medical expert tes‐\ntimony does not support the theory that J.J.’s bathtub slip and\nfall caused his death. Those experts testified that J.J.’s injuries\nwere consistent with a fall from two to four feet or striking\nsomething with the force of a fall from two to four feet. J.J.\nwas 24.5 inches tall. Even if J.J. slid from the seated position\nand hit his head in the tub, such a fall would only have been\nfrom about one foot and would not have been a free fall, but,\nrather, a slide from the seated position. Therefore, there is not\na reasonable probability that Felton would not have been con‐\nvicted because the habeas medical testimony would not have\nsupported the claim that J.J.’s death was caused by his bath‐\ntub fall.\n Furthermore, both the trial and habeas medical experts\nagreed that J.J. was not mobile at the time of his death, and\nthere was no evidence at trial that someone fell while holding\nJ.J. To the extent that Felton’s theory was that someone else\n\n\n 4 While he argued before the district court that his post‐trial experts\nrebutted the State’s medical expert testimony regarding when J.J.’s inju‐\nries were incurred, Felton concedes on appeal that neither sides’ experts\ncould narrow the timing of the injuries to one particular suspect.\n\f28 No. 18‐1954\n\nhurt J.J. at the playground, trial counsel elicited testimony\nfrom Dr. Vardis that, hypothetically, J.J.’s injuries could have\nbeen the result of a playground fall. And the jury heard testi‐\nmony about Sasha bumping J.J.’s head on the door frame and\nmedical testimony from Dr. Taylor that such a bump on the\nleft side of the head would not have caused J.J.’s injuries. Sim‐\nilarly, Dr. Barnes testified at the habeas hearing that J.J.’s in‐\njuries were not the result of an accidental bump to his head.\n Regarding shaking, it is true that two of the State’s experts\ntestified at trial that J.J. had been shaken, and according to\nDr. Vardis, shaken severely, and that Felton’s habeas experts\nrebutted that testimony citing the absence of a neck injury.\nShaking, however, was not the only evidence the jury heard\nabout the cause of death. Dr. Witeck testified that the cause of\nJ.J.’s death was “head injuries due to blunt force trauma.” And\neven Dr. Vardis testified that J.J. had been slammed into a\nhard object, which is consistent with the testimony of Dr.\nBarnes that even if J.J. had been shaken, his injuries were from\nsome sort of impact and would not have been from shaking\nalone. In light of this evidence, the Wisconsin Court of Ap‐\npeals was not unreasonable in its conclusion that “we are not\nconvinced that the differences in expert medical testimony\nwere significant enough to undermine our confidence in the\noutcome or prevent the real controversy from being tried”.5\n\n 5To the extent that Felton’s argument that the state appellate court\nunreasonably applied Strickland’s prejudice standard to the facts is also an\nargument that the state appellate court’s decision is “based on an unrea‐\nsonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the\nstate court proceeding,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), that argument is unavailing.\nThe Wisconsin Court of Appeals was critical that Felton’s citations did not\nsupport particular assertions, were only partially true, or were completely\nabsent in support of certain claims. Because Felton’s brief was required to\n\fNo. 18‐1954 29\n\n In support of his claim of prejudice, Felton further argues\nthat House’s testimony corroborated the State’s medical testi‐\nmony and, in turn, the State’s medical testimony corroborated\nHouse’s testimony. House’s testimony, however, did not cor‐\nroborate the medical evidence in the way Felton asserts in his\nbrief. Without citation to the record, Felton repeatedly states\nthat House testified that Felton confessed to shaking and\nslamming J.J. At trial, though, House never testified about\nshaking, but rather testified that Felton “swung [the baby]\ninto the bathroom door.” Further, the habeas medical testi‐\nmony did not undermine House’s testimony, and, in fact, was\nsupported in part by Dr. Plunkett’s testimony that J.J. could\nhave been struck with the same force as a three to four foot\nfall. Even if the habeas medical experts had testified at trial\nand Felton’s counsel had objected to the prosecutor’s closing\nargument, it was not reasonably likely the jury’s decision\nwould have been different. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 696.\n Finally, as the Wisconsin Court of Appeals noted, counsel\npresented evidence that others had “custody of [J.J.] on the\nday he was admitted to the hospital,” and these alleged errors\ndid not affect that evidence. Similarly, the unfavorable trial\ntestimony about Felton was unaffected by these alleged er‐\nrors. Id. (noting that some errors will not affect some of the\nfactual findings). Felton’s failure to tell anyone about J.J.’s slip\n\ncontain “a statement of facts relevant to the issues presented for review,\nwith appropriate references to the record,” Wis. Stat. 809.19(1)(d) and\n“[j]udges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in the record,” Gross\nv. Town of Cicero, 619 F.3d 697, 702 (7th Cir. 2010), the Wisconsin Court of\nAppeals’s conclusion about a lack of prejudice was not unreasonable. See\ngenerally United States v. Lewis, 594 F.3d 1270, 1275 (10th Cir. 2010) (“[I]t is\nnot this court’s duty to scour without guidance a voluminous record for\nevidence supporting the government’s theory.”).\n\f30 No. 18‐1954\n\nin the bathtub, including Sasha when she phoned from work\nor the hospital physicians, his delay in telling the police J.J.\nfell in the tub, testimony that he was goofing around while his\nson was in the NICU suffering severe brain trauma, testimony\nthat Felton stated at the hospital that he did not want to go to\njail, testimony that he had limited experience caring for J.J. by\nhimself, and testimony he compelled his cellmate to sign a re‐\nquest form he had written in an attempt presumably to un‐\ndermine House were all unaffected by the errors that Felton\nnow alleges. And as we discussed above, the habeas medical\ntestimony would not have supported Felton’s claim about the\ncause of J.J.’s injury. Accordingly, the Wisconsin Court of Ap‐\npeals did not unreasonably conclude that Felton was not prej‐\nudiced by counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s state‐\nment and failure to call medical experts.\n III.\n We AFFIRM the denial of Felton’s petition for a writ of\nhabeas corpus.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Jeremiah Felton v. Byran Bartow\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-06-18\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18‐1954\\nJEREMIAH FELTON,\\n Petitioner‐Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nBRYAN BARTOW,\\n Respondent‐Appellee.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Eastern District of Wisconsin.\\n No. 14‐cv‐965 — Nancy Joseph, Magistrate Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED FEBRUARY 22, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 18, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before RIPPLE, MANION, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\\n MANION, Circuit Judge. A jury convicted Jeremiah Felton of\\nfirst degree intentional homicide in Wisconsin state court for\\nthe death of his three‐month‐old son, Jeremiah Felton Jr. (J.J.).\\nThe jury heard testimony about the days leading up to J.J.’s\\ndeath, such as those who cared for and had contact with him,\\nincluding Felton. The jury also heard about Felton’s conver‐\\nsations with police, whom he told that J.J. had slipped and hit\\nhis head in the bathtub, and with fellow jail inmate, Douglas\\n\\f2 No. 18‐1954\\n\\nHouse, who testified that Felton said he had swung J.J. into a\\nbathroom door. J.J.’s treating physicians and the medical ex‐\\naminer also testified about J.J.’s injuries and cause of death,\\nwhich two of the physicians stated, in part, was due to shak‐\\ning. The medical examiner concluded that blunt force trauma\\nwas the cause of death. The jury found Felton guilty.\\n Felton sought post‐conviction relief in the Wisconsin state\\ncourt based on ineffective assistance of counsel. In particular,\\nFelton cited his attorney’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s\\nstatement during closing argument that House could not re‐\\nceive a sentence modification for his testimony in Felton’s trial\\nand failure to secure medical expert testimony to rebut the\\nState’s witnesses. At the post‐conviction hearing, Felton’s\\ncounsel testified as well as three medical experts who con‐\\ncluded J.J. had not been shaken and J.J.’s injuries were con‐\\nsistent with a fall of two to four feet. The state trial court de‐\\nnied Felton’s petition, and the Wisconsin Court of Appeals af‐\\nfirmed the denial. The Wisconsin Supreme Court summarily\\ndenied Felton’s petition for review. Felton sought a writ of ha‐\\nbeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the district court. The\\ndistrict court denied Felton’s petition, and Felton now appeals\\nto this court. Because the decision of the Wisconsin Court of\\nAppeals was not unreasonable, Felton’s petition is denied.\\n I.\\nA. Criminal Trial1\\n J.J. Felton was born on February 16, 2008. During his short\\nlife, J.J. lived with his mother, Sasha Fulton, and his father,\\n\\n\\n 1Unless otherwise noted, the facts are drawn from the testimony and\\nother evidence at Felton’s criminal jury trial.\\n\\fNo. 18‐1954 3\\n\\nJeremiah Felton, would sometimes stay with them. Sasha and\\nFelton were not married. They had renewed their relationship\\nin June 2008, and Felton moved with Sasha and J.J. to a new\\napartment the weekend before J.J. died. On Sunday, June 1,\\n2008, J.J. spent the day at the park with various family mem‐\\nbers, including his parents. Sasha took J.J. home around sup‐\\npertime while Felton stayed out until after midnight. That\\nnight, Felton stayed with Sasha and J.J. at the new apartment.\\nSasha’s cousin, Bryiana Fulton, and her baby also stayed there\\nthat night.\\n 1. The Day at the Apartment\\n The next morning, while Felton slept, Sasha fed and\\nplayed with J.J. before going to work shortly before 9 a.m. Bry‐\\niana sometimes cared for J.J., but that day, Sasha told her to\\nleave him with Felton. It was the first time Sasha left J.J. in\\nFelton’s care for the day while she was at work.\\n While Felton was home with J.J., different family members\\ncame in and out of the apartment throughout the day. Bryiana\\nleft the apartment sometime after 9 a.m. When she returned\\naround noon, Felton and J.J. were there along with Byrian Ful‐\\nton (Bryiana’s brother) and Casey Fulton (Sasha’s brother).\\nJ.J. seemed to be acting normally at that time. Bryiana gave\\nhim a bottle before leaving around 12:30 p.m. Casey and Byr‐\\nian left at the same time, and Felton remained in the apart‐\\nment with J.J. Sasha called Felton from work about 2:30 or\\n3 p.m., and he told her that J.J. had been sleeping all day.\\n Sasha’s fifteen‐year‐old cousin, Anthony Hendrix, came\\nby the apartment sometime after his school let out for the day\\nat 2:30 p.m. There he found Felton alone in the apartment with\\nJ.J., who was sleeping on the couch while Felton was getting\\n\\f4 No. 18‐1954\\n\\nout of the shower. Hendrix testified that J.J. cried multiple\\ntimes while he was there, and that both he and Felton picked\\nhim up. Hendrix put J.J. down in his crib and patted his back.\\nJ.J. stopped crying, and Hendrix left soon after.\\n When Sasha returned home from work around 5:25 p.m.,\\nshe checked on J.J., who was sleeping. She let him sleep; J.J.\\nwas a fussy baby, and Sasha did not want to disturb him. Bry‐\\niana came back around the same time. Felton asked Sasha to\\ndrive him to his friend’s graduation. After eating a sandwich,\\nSasha borrowed Bryiana’s car to drive Felton to the gradua‐\\ntion ceremony and returned about a half hour to forty\\nminutes later. While Sasha and Felton were gone, Bryiana\\nstayed at Sasha’s apartment with her son and J.J. When Sasha\\nreturned, she did not check on J.J. right away, but let him sleep\\nand began cleaning the kitchen and bathroom. About fifteen\\nminutes later, she heard J.J. make a funny noise and went to\\ncheck on him. There she found J.J. with one eye open and one\\neye shut. Sasha cried out that something was wrong. Bryiana\\nthought that Sasha was overreacting until she saw J.J. She then\\ntold Sasha to call 911 while she attempted to revive J.J.\\n 2. At the Hospital\\n J.J. was taken by ambulance to St. Vincent Hospital in\\nGreen Bay around 7:30 p.m. Dr. John Taylor, pediatric critical\\ncare physician, first saw J.J. shortly after he arrived at the hos‐\\npital. Dr. Taylor intubated J.J. and ordered x‐rays and a CT\\nscan. The CT scan revealed J.J. had a skull fracture just above\\nand slightly behind his right ear, specifically his right parietal\\nbone, bleeding under his skull and in his brain, and retinal\\nhemorrhages. Dr. Taylor told Sasha and Felton he was con‐\\ncerned someone had hurt J.J. because there was no record of\\na car accident or someone falling or tripping down the stairs\\n\\fNo. 18‐1954 5\\n\\nwith their son, and J.J. was not yet rolling or moving by him‐\\nself. Sasha told Dr. Taylor that the day before while she had\\nbeen carrying J.J. in her left arm, J.J. bumped his head as she\\nwalked through the door. Felton did not give any explanation\\nto Dr. Taylor.\\n A number of family members came to the hospital that\\nnight. Some of them played in the halls, including Felton, who\\npushed Casey around in a wheelchair. Hospital staff asked\\nthem to leave because they were too noisy and disruptive. Fel‐\\nton and Sasha were allowed to stay, and they fell asleep in the\\nfamily waiting room.\\n That same night, the hospital or Brown County Human\\nServices contacted the police about J.J.’s serious injuries and\\nthe lack of explanation for them. Detective Robert Haglund\\nand Detective Walter Wickman of the Green Bay Police De‐\\npartment arrived at the hospital around 3 a.m. on Tuesday,\\nJune 3. Haglund woke Felton and Sasha. He interviewed\\nSasha with a human services representative present, and\\nWickman interviewed Felton in a separate room. There Felton\\ntold Wickman that he did not know what could have hap‐\\npened because J.J. was with him or people they knew. He told\\nWickman about Sasha bumping J.J.’s head into the door, but\\nprovided no other explanation about how J.J. might have sus‐\\ntained his injuries. After interviewing Sasha, Haglund joined\\nWickman and Felton and asked Felton what had happened.\\nAfter confirming Felton told him the same thing he had just\\ntold Wickman, Haglund and Wickman left the hospital.\\n Haglund returned to the hospital the next day and spoke\\nwith various family members, including Bryiana and Hen‐\\ndrix, asking them what might have happened to J.J. He\\nlearned about the move to the new apartment on Friday and\\n\\f6 No. 18‐1954\\n\\nSaturday and the day at the park on Sunday. At the end of his\\ninterviews, Haglund asked the family, including Felton,\\nSasha, and Bryiana, to be quiet because they were being noisy\\nplaying up and down the halls. Haglund also told them he\\nbelieved one of the family members was responsible for J.J.’s\\ninjuries and his prime suspects were Felton, Bryiana, and\\nSasha because they had been alone with J.J. on Monday. Hag‐\\nlund also advised Felton to check in with his probation officer\\nas he was required to do if he spoke with law enforcement.\\n While at the hospital, Felton stated more than once, “I just\\ndon’t want to go to jail.” In one instance, Bryiana testified Fel‐\\nton expressed frustration over what he thought was a lack of\\ninformation from doctors, and he did not want to hit the doc‐\\ntor and go to jail.\\n 3. J.J.’s Death and Felton’s Conversation with Police and\\n Fellow Inmate\\n J.J.’s condition worsened, and he died from his injuries on\\nJune 5th. Shortly after his son’s death, Felton went to the\\nBrown County Jail on a probation hold. On June 9, 2008, Fel‐\\nton asked to talk with police and spoke with Haglund. Felton\\ngave Haglund a statement, which Haglund typed and Felton\\nread and signed. In that statement, Felton recounted that\\naround 2 p.m. on the day J.J. was rushed to the hospital, “I got\\nin the bathtub with my baby and started giving him a bath.\\nThere was only two inches of water. He was sitting between\\nmy legs and his butt slipped forward and his head came back‐\\nwards and his head hit the bottom of the tub between my legs.\\nHis right ear went in the water, but his face didn’t go under\\nthe water. He started crying. I wiped him off, got him dressed,\\nand gave him a bottle, patted him to sleep while he was lying\\non the couch.” Felton told Haglund he felt it in his legs when\\n\\fNo. 18‐1954 7\\n\\nJ.J. hit the bottom of the tub and J.J. hit the tub “kind of hard.”\\nFelton said he was going to tell Haglund about this in the hos‐\\npital, but Haglund made him nervous.\\n Haglund spoke again with Felton on June 12th telling him\\nthe doctors said that the slip in the tub could not have caused\\nJ.J.’s injuries. When Haglund left the interview room, Felton\\nstood by the door trying to listen to what was being said out‐\\nside the room, which Haglund stated witnesses typically do\\nnot do. After speaking with Felton on June 12th, Haglund sent\\nthe case file over to the District Attorney’s Office recommend‐\\ning Felton be charged with first degree intentional homicide\\nfor J.J.’s death. On June 13, 2008, the Green Bay Police Depart‐\\nment issued a press release about its request and stated J.J.\\nhad suffered a skull fracture from blunt force trauma. The\\npress release did not say where the fracture was located on\\nthe skull.\\n Meanwhile, Douglas House, one of Felton’s fellow in‐\\nmates at the Brown County Jail, sent police a request form,\\notherwise known as a “kite,” dated June 13, 2008. House had\\nnine to ten prior convictions and had a reputation as both a\\njailhouse lawyer and a snitch. House’s kite stated, “I have con‐\\nclusive evidence to convict Jeremiah Felton, Sr. in the death of\\nhis infant son, Junior. That was caused by right side trauma\\nto head behind right ear. Will only come out if called out as\\nan attorney visit.”\\n Haglund spoke with House on June 16th. (It was the not\\nthe first time Haglund and House spoke with one another;\\nthey had previously talked about other cases.) House told\\nHaglund that when Felton approached him, Felton had not\\nyet been charged with J.J.’s death, and they discussed the time\\nconstraints for Felton’s probation hold. After that, Felton told\\n\\f8 No. 18‐1954\\n\\nhim about J.J. House told Haglund that Felton had told him\\nthat J.J. was getting on his nerves, so he swung J.J. into the\\nbathroom door hitting the right side of J.J.’s head behind his\\near. House also asked Haglund to look into whether the police\\nwere harassing his children.\\n House spoke again with Haglund on June 23rd. Haglund\\ntold House that the police were watching another house near\\nhis children. House, in turn, told Haglund that Felton told\\nhim that the police questioned him about J.J. and he planned\\nto blame it on his girlfriend’s sister. In addition to telling Hag‐\\nlund about Felton, House asked Haglund if he could look into\\npolice harassing his son and daughter. Haglund checked into\\nthis and later told House that the police were not watching his\\nkids, but were watching a nearby house.\\n 4. Other Criminal Trial Testimony\\n Felton was charged with first degree intentional homicide\\nin J.J.’s death, and the case proceeded to trial. Several wit‐\\nnesses, including Sasha and Felton’s mother, testified that J.J.\\nwas a fussy baby. On one occasion, Bryiana “popped” J.J. and\\nher son on their diapers when they were “both a little crabby.”\\nSasha testified that she did not like that Bryiana spanked J.J.,\\nbut she was very close with her cousin and trusted her to care\\nfor J.J. As for Felton, Sasha and others testified that he was\\ngood with his children and nieces and nephews, and they also\\ntestified that if J.J. got fussy, Felton would pass J.J. to someone\\nelse or put him in his car seat until he stopped crying.\\n House testified at trial:\\n A. Well, he [Felton] said that he had been home, I be‐\\n lieve he said he was home with his girlfriend’s sister,\\n or wife’s sister, one or the other, and that he was giving\\n\\fNo. 18‐1954 9\\n\\n the baby a bath, and the baby slipped. That the baby\\n had either gotten water in his eyes or mouth and\\n started crying, and he tried for a long period of time to\\n quiet the baby down, but that didn’t happen.\\n Q. What else did he continue to tell you what hap‐\\n pened?\\n A. He had gotten frustrated and was holding the baby,\\n and then swung the baby into the bathroom door. The\\n baby, Jeremiah, hit his head on the right side, and he\\n pointed to the left ‐ ‐ or the right side behind his ear of\\n where the baby hit his head.\\n Q. I was going to ask, how do you know it was the right\\n side?\\n A. Well, as he was telling me, he made the motion, and\\n he said he was holding the baby, swung the baby, and\\n the baby hit his head, and I said where, and he said\\n right here, and he pointed right behind his head.\\n …\\n Q. Did he say anything else to you after ‐ ‐\\n A. He did. You know, he made it sound like he was\\n going to put the blame on the ‐ ‐ the girlfriend’s sister,\\n and he said he ‐ ‐ he also said you know, for a substan‐\\n tial amount of time that baby shut up so he knew some‐\\n thing was wrong.\\n House found Felton’s demeanor odd because “it was like\\nthere was no concern whatsoever for the baby.” House also\\ntold the jury about Felton’s confession and identified Felton\\nin the courtroom. He testified that after Felton was charged,\\n\\f10 No. 18‐1954\\n\\nFelton approached House about the kite and asked why\\nHouse snitched on him.\\n On cross‐examination, House denied ever talking with his\\nattorney about getting anything in return for information he\\nhad about Felton. Felton’s counsel impeached House by play‐\\ning two recorded telephone conversations that House had\\nwhile in the Brown County Jail. The first call was between\\nHouse and his attorney. During that call, House’s attorney\\ntold him she had spoken with Haglund who said he was un‐\\nsure he could do anything for House unless House testified in\\nFelton’s case. House’s attorney also discussed information\\nHouse had about another homicide. The second call was be‐\\ntween House and one of his daughters. House’s daughter told\\nhim that Haglund had said House needed to testify “against\\n[sic] for the baby or something.” On redirect, House testified\\nhis case was over and he did not receive any consideration in\\nhis case for his testimony in Felton’s trial.\\n Felton called his Brown County Jail cellmate, Ishtayopi\\nJones, to testify. Jones came to the jail on June 14th. He was\\nfamiliar with House because they had met previously, though\\nhe tried to stay away from House because his family warned\\nhim that House was a “con artist.” Jones stated House ex‐\\npressed concern to him when he learned that Jones was room‐\\ning with Felton, though House did not tell Jones why. Jones\\nsaid he learned about Felton’s case from the television. Jones\\nstated he did talk with Felton about House and what a “big\\ntroublemaker” and “scam artist” he was.\\n On cross‐examination, the prosecutor asked Jones about a\\nkite he signed and dated October 8, 2008. The kite stated, in\\npart, “I did not and will not try and tell on Jeremiah Felton.”\\nWhen asked at trial, “What’s there to tell on Jeremiah Felton,”\\n\\fNo. 18‐1954 11\\n\\nJones responded, “Nothing, I guess.” The prosecutor further\\nquestioned Jones about the kite, and Jones’s testimony made\\nit clear that he knew nothing about Felton’s case from Felton\\nor House and that Felton, not Jones, wrote the kite. When\\nasked why he signed the request form, Jones responded,\\n“‘Cause [Felton] looked pretty mad at me, then I just told him\\nI’d sign it and that if he needs me to testify, I’ll do that for\\nhim.” Jones also testified he told Haglund that Felton had\\nnever talked with Felton about his case and that House “is just\\nlying and making stuff up to get himself out of what situation\\nhe’s in right now.”\\n 5. Medical Testimony\\n Also at trial, the State called three physicians, two of J.J.’s\\ntreating physicians and the medical examiner, to present tes‐\\ntimony about J.J.’s injuries and cause of death. Dr. John Tay‐\\nlor, who first treated J.J. upon his arrival at the hospital, testi‐\\nfied that both J.J.’s fracture and retinal hemorrhaging were the\\nresult of a significant amount of force, such as a car accident.\\nIn J.J.’s case, Dr. Taylor suspected “most likely that this was a\\nresult of significant shaking.” Dr. Taylor stated that a bump\\nlike Sasha bumping J.J.’s head in the doorway would not ac‐\\ncount for J.J.’s injuries because the bump was on J.J.’s left side,\\nthe force would have been insufficient, and J.J. was eating,\\nsleeping, awakening, and playing in an age‐appropriate way\\nafter that. He also testified that it is difficult to establish a time\\nframe for when the injuries were sustained. According to\\nDr. Taylor, it could be at the longest a day, but he believed it\\nwas within an hour or two of the injuries presenting them‐\\nselves.\\n A couple hypotheticals were posed to Dr. Taylor while he\\nwas testifying. The prosecutor asked him about a child J.J.’s\\n\\f12 No. 18‐1954\\n\\nsize slipping in the bathtub between someone else’s legs and\\nhitting his head. Dr. Taylor responded that the distance of the\\nfall would not have caused the skull fracture, hemorrhages,\\nand bruising in the back of the eye. He stated that J.J.’s injuries\\nwere more consistent with his head being swung into a door\\nthan falling in a bathtub. Felton’s counsel asked whether, hy‐\\npothetically, those injuries could have resulted from someone\\nfalling with J.J. at the playground. Dr. Taylor responded that\\nit was “[e]xtraordinarily unlikely, but … there was a\\nminiscule possibility.”\\n Another of J.J.’s treating physicians, Dr. Ralph Vardis, also\\ntestified. He concluded that J.J.’s injuries were consistent with\\nbeing violently shaken and slammed into a hard surface. On\\ncross‐examination, Dr. Vardis stated that the injuries could\\nhave been caused by a fifteen‐year‐old so long as it was vio‐\\nlent and intentional. Dr. Vardis testified about the progression\\nof J.J.’s symptoms, namely the brain swelling, and concluded\\nthat J.J. was so severely shaken that his brain completely died.\\nHe said J.J.’s brain bleeding and skull fracture were not likely\\ncaused by a short fall, but rather “[t]he only way you can get\\nthe kind of findings that we saw is if the height was one to\\ntwo stories from the top of a building.” According to Dr. Var‐\\ndis, some of J.J.’s bleeding was due to the skull fracture and\\nsome of the bleeding was due to the shaking. He acknowl‐\\nedged on cross‐examination that there was a disagreement\\nbetween his opinion regarding J.J.’s cause of death, i.e. shaken\\nbaby syndrome, and the medical examiner’s conclusion in the\\nautopsy report, i.e. head injuries due to blunt force trauma.\\nAs for timing, Dr. Vardis noted that there is no way to tell\\nwhen the injuries occurred. He stated that the injury could not\\nhave happened on Sunday, but it could have happened be‐\\ntween five minutes to twelve hours from when the symptoms\\n\\fNo. 18‐1954 13\\n\\nwere evident. He also expected the same physical findings if\\nit had taken place at 1 p.m. or 5 p.m. the day J.J. came to the\\nhospital.\\n The third doctor to testify at trial was Dr. Mark Witeck. Dr.\\nWiteck, a forensic pathologist, served as the medical examiner\\nfor Brown County. He performed the autopsy on J.J. Based on\\nhis examination, Dr. Witeck concluded that J.J. died of “cra‐\\nnial cerebral trauma, in other words, head injuries due to\\nblunt force trauma.” Dr. Witeck testified that J.J. was just un‐\\nder 15 pounds and was 24.5 inches long, had no external inju‐\\nries, including bruises, and his anterior fontanel, commonly\\nreferred to as the soft spot in the front of the head, was bulg‐\\ning outward. This was consistent with brain swelling, and the\\nseverity and global nature of the swelling was consistent with\\na head injury. J.J. had fractures on the right side and front base\\nof his skull in “what’s called the orbital plate, that’s the little\\nbone plate that’s just above the eye.” There was also a blood\\nclot and bleeding on the surface of the right side of the brain.\\nDr. Witeck stated “that requires a lot of trauma to the head to\\nget that kind of bleeding.” Dr. Witeck testified J.J.’s brain\\nbleeding was consistent with the fracture. While he stated eye\\nhemorrhages are often seen in children who are shaken, he\\ndid not opine whether J.J. had been shaken.\\n According to Dr. Witeck, the fracture was consistent with\\nhaving been caused by blunt force trauma. This means J.J.’s\\nhead was hit with something or against something, though\\nthere was no way to know whether it was a single blow or\\nmultiple blows. He also said J.J.’s injuries were consistent\\nwith being swung into an object with significant force.\\nDr. Witeck testified J.J.’s fractures were not consistent with a\\nbaby standing and falling to the floor, but were consistent\\n\\f14 No. 18‐1954\\n\\nwith a fall only from a large height, like off of a one‐ or two‐\\nstory building. When asked whether a child of 24.5 inches tall\\nsitting in a bathtub, slipping, and hitting his head on the bath‐\\ntub could cause the injuries that he saw, Dr. Witeck re‐\\nsponded, “Not at all.” On cross‐examination, Dr. Witeck tes‐\\ntified a premature birth could play a part in a child’s suscep‐\\ntibility to fracture.\\n Felton did not call any medical experts to testify on his be‐\\nhalf. (As discussed below, his attorney consulted with her\\nphysician husband and a medical student, but did not call ei‐\\nther as witnesses at trial.) Other than the testimony elicited\\nfrom the State’s medical experts on cross‐examination, Felton\\ndid not present any medical evidence at trial.\\n 6. Jury Instructions, Closing Arguments, and Verdict\\n After the close of evidence, the trial judge instructed the\\njury. In part, the judge instructed, “Consider only the evi‐\\ndence received during this trial as given to you by these in‐\\nstructions, and from these alone, guided by your soundest\\nreason and best judgment, reach your verdict.” The judge also\\ninstructed, “Remarks of the attorneys are not evidence. If the\\nremarks suggested certain facts not in evidence, disregard the\\nsuggestion. In a few moments, you will hear the closing argu‐\\nments of the attorneys. Consider carefully the closing argu‐\\nments of the attorneys, but their arguments and conclusions\\nand opinions are not evidence. Draw your own conclusions\\nfrom the evidence and decide upon your verdict according to\\nthe evidence and the instructions given you by the court.” Af‐\\nter instructions, the prosecutor and Felton’s counsel pre‐\\nsented their closing arguments to the jury.\\n\\fNo. 18‐1954 15\\n\\n During closing arguments, the prosecutor argued in part:\\n What House is testifying has to be the truth … what\\n did he get for testifying on October 21st or 22nd, 2009?\\n The answer is nothing. Absolutely nothing. Is there a\\n case pending against him? No. Long gone. Over. Done\\n with. There’s nothing that House was going to gain by\\n testifying. Because his case was over. It was done. Per‐\\n haps, just maybe, perhaps, he testifies because he was\\n subpoenaed by the state and maybe, even somebody,\\n even a criminal like Doug House, can do the right thing\\n once in a while.\\n In response, Felton’s counsel stated:\\n And by the way, I am going to set the record straight.\\n State said, well, his case is settled. He didn’t get any\\n concessions. Cooperation with law enforcement, that\\n matter can be reopened any time for a sentence modi‐\\n fication. So the fact that he hasn’t received any benefit\\n yet, it might be ‘cause we had to wait for this case to go\\n forward. Doesn’t mean he’s not getting it. It means he\\n hasn’t gotten it yet.\\n And the prosecutor responded in the State’s rebuttal:\\n Mr. House has absolutely nothing to gain here. He was\\n honest with you. His case is closed. He can’t receive\\n anything for his testimony at this point. … [H]e won’t\\n gain anything, no advantages from the state. Just a\\n lightening of his conscience. … And he’s received no\\n consideration for this. His case is closed. Once again,\\n it’s done.\\n Felton’s counsel did not object to this latter statement.\\n(Several months later, House received a sentence reduction\\n\\f16 No. 18‐1954\\n\\nfor his testimony at Felton’s trial, though the State remained\\nsilent on that motion.) After deliberating for about four hours,\\nthe jury found Felton guilty of first degree intentional homi‐\\ncide. Felton was sentenced to life imprisonment.\\nB. Post‐conviction Proceedings\\n Felton filed a post‐conviction motion asserting ineffective\\nassistance of counsel based on two alleged errors. First, he ar‐\\ngued that his attorney erred by not securing medical experts\\nto rebut the State’s medical testimony at trial. Second, Felton\\nargued his attorney erred by not objecting to the prosecutor’s\\nclosing argument rebuttal statement that House would re‐\\nceive no benefit from his testimony. 2\\n 1. Felton’s Counsel\\n The state trial court conducted a hearing on Felton’s mo‐\\ntion. There Felton’s trial counsel testified. Felton was first rep‐\\nresented by a public defender, and counsel began to represent\\nFelton after he and his family privately retained her. While\\nthe original agreement was that she would receive $15,000 to\\ntake the case through trial, she essentially represented Felton\\npro‐bono receiving only $750 in payments. Despite a lack of\\ncompensation, counsel continued to represent Felton because\\nshe felt strongly about his case. Financial constraints, though,\\nimpacted her decision about medical experts. Counsel testi‐\\nfied that she did not hire medical experts because of the ex‐\\npense (the two out‐of‐state experts she contacted both wanted\\na minimum $2,500 retainer, and she never sought funding\\n\\n 2Felton also invoked the state trial court’s discretionary power to\\ngrant him post‐conviction relief in the interest of justice asserting the jury\\ndid not have the opportunity to hear the medical testimony and was mis‐\\nled by the prosecutor’s closing argument statements about House.\\n\\fNo. 18‐1954 17\\n\\nthrough the state public defender’s office). Counsel also\\nstated that she did not think that “hired guns” would play\\nwell to a Green Bay jury. Instead, she researched medical lit‐\\nerature and consulted her husband, a general internist who\\nspecialized in endocrinology, and a medical student, who was\\nworking for her husband, about the case. The medical student\\nhad relationships with physicians at Milwaukee Children’s\\nHospital and presented J.J.’s file to one of the doctors there.\\nThat doctor said that the race of the family was the first thing\\nat which he would look. This raised red flags for counsel, and\\nshe did not pursue an evaluation of the case from that doctor.\\nFinally, when asked, counsel testified she was aware of State\\nv. Edmunds, 746 N.W.2d 590 (Wis. 2008), in which the Wiscon‐\\nsin Supreme Court granted a new trial to a defendant based\\non newly discovered evidence rebutting the shaken baby syn‐\\ndrome theory. Counsel stated she did not contact any of the\\nEdmunds experts.\\n Regarding House, counsel said she repeatedly argued to\\nthe jury why it should not believe House. She also noted she\\nworked hard to discredit Detective Haglund, including ques‐\\ntioning him about any concessions for House, such as check‐\\ning on the surveillance of his daughter. She also explored al‐\\nternate avenues from which House could have learned about\\nthe case, such as the Green Bay Police Department press re‐\\nlease. She stated she made the strategic decision not to object\\nto the prosecutor’s closing argument rebuttal statement about\\nHouse because she concluded it was better in the face of the\\njury not to object. Moreover, counsel noted that she “objected\\nby giving a narration of my objection, rather than saying, ob‐\\njection.” In other words, she described to the jury House\\ncould be entitled to a sentence modification even if he had not\\nreceived one yet.\\n\\f18 No. 18‐1954\\n\\n 2. Post‐Trial Medical Experts\\n Felton also called three medical experts to testify at his\\npost‐conviction hearing. These physicians were critical of the\\nState’s medical experts in two key respects: they concluded\\nJ.J.’s injuries were not from shaking and his injuries could\\nhave been the result of a short fall.\\n The first doctor to testify was Dr. Patrick Barnes, a pediat‐\\nric radiologist and neuroradiologist from Stanford University\\nSchool of Medicine. Dr. Barnes disagreed with the State’s ex‐\\nperts that J.J. had been shaken. He noted that J.J. would have\\nsuffered a neck injury if he had been shaken. Moreover,\\nDr. Barnes stated that even if J.J. had been shaken, his injuries\\nwould have resulted from some sort of impact and not shak‐\\ning alone. He also strongly disagreed with the State’s experts\\nabout J.J.’s injuries being equivalent to those of a multi‐story\\nfall. Rather, Dr. Barnes testified that J.J.’s fracture was a classic\\nexample of a fall between two and three feet, such as a child\\nfalling while being held by a standing adult. He stated,\\nthough, J.J.’s fracture and other injuries were less likely a re‐\\nsult of a short fall, estimating a five percent chance. Dr. Barnes\\nalso testified that J.J.’s skull fracture “is what we call a linear\\nskull fracture. It’s actually a very common type of traumatic\\ninjury to an infant’s skull due to accidental injury scenarios,\\nlike dropping the baby to the floor or hitting the baby’s head\\nagainst something, but it still doesn’t tell us if it was inten‐\\ntional or accidental.” Dr. Barnes stated it is uncommon for a\\nchild to die from a three or four foot fall. While a bump could\\ncause a simple skull fracture, because of J.J.’s other injuries,\\nnamely the brain swelling and bleeding, something other\\nthan a bump to the head or banging his head against the wall\\nhappened according to Dr. Barnes. Regarding the bleeding\\n\\fNo. 18‐1954 19\\n\\nbetween J.J.’s brain and skull, Dr. Barnes testified that it has\\nbeen reported to be connected with either a lack of oxygen or\\nblood flow to the baby’s brain or where there is malignant\\nbrain swelling from either accidental or non‐accidental\\ncauses. Dr. Barnes went on to testify that J.J. had lung abnor‐\\nmalities suggestive of an improper intubation that could have\\ninterfered with the oxygen to his brain.\\n The second physician, Dr. Joseph Scheller, staff child neu‐\\nrologist at Children’s National Medical Center in Washington,\\nD.C., also disagreed with the State’s experts that J.J. had been\\nshaken and noted the absence of a neck injury. He said J.J. had\\na skull fracture, and “[i]t’s physically impossible to create a\\nskull fracture without force against the outside of the head, so\\nwe are sure that something happened to the outside of this\\nchild’s head that was a force directed against it.” Like Dr.\\nBarnes, he was critical of the State’s medical experts’ testi‐\\nmony analogizing the force to that of a car accident or a multi‐\\nstory fall. He testified that a short fall of two or three feet\\nwould less commonly cause a skull fracture, and it was less\\nlikely to have a skull fracture from a short fall than from being\\nswung or slammed into a hard object. Though Dr. Scheller\\nthought that J.J.’s injuries were more in line with a fall because\\nof the absence of bruising, he later stated it was possible to\\nhave a skull fracture without any bruising. Dr. Scheller testi‐\\nfied, “I believe that the baby did develop the skull fracture,\\nthe brain swelling, and the retinal hemorrhages from a short\\nfall rather than having been maliciously slammed into some‐\\nthing” because “from witnessed short falls, that when babies\\nget a skull fracture, it is in the parietal area … and that’s where\\nbaby Felton’s skull fracture was. And we really didn’t see any\\nevidence of bruising. Again, if a baby’s being held violently\\nand being slammed, then you’re going to look for bruising or\\n\\f20 No. 18‐1954\\n\\nbone injuries somewhere else, and we really didn’t see that.”\\nHe noted a parietal fracture was a common injury in infants\\nand, in his experience, if the injury is not witnessed and there\\nis no other abnormality, the conclusion is that the injury was\\naccidental. As for when J.J. sustained his injuries, Dr. Scheller\\ntestified it could have been three to six hours, maybe twelve\\nhours, but not twenty‐four hours.\\n The final doctor to testify at the hearing was Dr. John Plun‐\\nkett, a forensic pathologist from Minnesota. Dr. Plunkett\\nstated that J.J. was pretty immobile, so “we’re not talking\\nabout him rolling or falling off of some structure. We’re talk‐\\ning about an adult either intentionally or accidentally drop‐\\nping him or throwing him. Those are your possibilities, at\\nleast from the history that I have, so you can’t draw an anal‐\\nogy and just say fall.” Put another way, Dr. Plunkett testified\\nthat J.J.’s fracture was “consistent with an aggressive, mali‐\\ncious act against the baby’s head and it’s also consistent with\\na short fall,” but there was no way to tell absolutely. Similarly,\\nthere was no way to tell just by looking at the injuries whether\\nthey were the result of an accidental or intentional cause ac‐\\ncording to Dr. Plunkett. He stated that he would expect to see\\nother injuries if a child had been swung into a wall like a base‐\\nball bat. On cross‐examination, Dr. Plunkett testified it was\\npossible, though, for a child to be propelled or struck against\\nan object with the same velocity and acceleration that would\\nresult from a three‐and‐a‐half‐foot fall.\\n The state trial court denied Felton’s post‐conviction mo‐\\ntion for relief, analyzing both the performance and prejudice\\nprongs of the ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The Wis‐\\nconsin Court of Appeals similarly denied Felton’s petition,\\n\\fNo. 18‐1954 21\\n\\nconcluding that neither counsel’s failure to object to the pros‐\\necutor’s closing argument statement nor her failure to call\\nmedical experts was prejudicial. The Wisconsin Supreme\\nCourt summarily denied Felton’ petition for review. Felton\\nfiled a petition for federal habeas relief in federal court. The\\ndistrict court denied his petition, but it issued a certificate of\\nappealability. Felton now appeals.\\n II.\\n To succeed on his claim of ineffective assistance of coun‐\\nsel, Felton must show his counsel’s performance was deficient\\nand he was prejudiced as a result. Strickland v. Washington, 466\\nU.S. 668, 687 (1984). We are not required to consider perfor‐\\nmance or prejudice in a particular order or even address “both\\ncomponents of the inquiry if [Felton] makes an insufficient\\nshowing on one.” Id. at 697.\\n We review a district court’s denial of a petition for habeas\\ncorpus de novo and findings of fact for clear error. Barrow v.\\nUchtman, 398 F.3d 597, 602 (7th Cir. 2005). The Antiterrorism\\nand Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) authorizes us to\\ngrant habeas relief only if the state court decision was “con‐\\ntrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of clearly\\nestablished Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court\\nof the United States” or “based on an unreasonable determi‐\\nnation of the facts in the light of the evidence presented in the\\nstate court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). We will consider\\n“the last reasoned opinion on the claim,” which in this case is\\nfrom the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. Woolley v. Rednour, 702\\nF.3d 411, 421 (7th Cir. 2012) (quoting Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501\\nU.S. 797, 803 (1991)). A state court’s application of federal law\\nis unreasonable if it is “more than incorrect; it must have been\\nobjectively unreasonable.” Id. at 420 (citing Wiggins v. Smith,\\n\\f22 No. 18‐1954\\n\\n539 U.S. 510, 520 (2003)); accord Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362,\\n411 (2000). “‘Unreasonable’ in [the AEDPA] context means\\nmore than just incorrect; it means something … lying well\\noutside the boundaries of permissible differences of opinion.”\\nMcGhee v. Dittmann, 794 F.3d 761, 769 (7th Cir. 2015) (quoting\\nCorcoran v. Neal, 783 F.3d 676, 683 (7th Cir. 2015)). “The bar for\\nestablishing that the state court’s application of the Strickland\\n[ineffective assistance of counsel] standard was ‘unreasona‐\\nble,’ is a high one.” Taylor v. Bradley, 448 F.3d 942, 948 (7th Cir.\\n2006). “[A]s long as we are satisfied that the Wisconsin Court\\nof Appeals took the constitutional standard seriously and pro‐\\nduce[d] an answer within the range of defensible positions,\\nwe will affirm the district court’s decision to deny the writ.”\\nId. (citation and internal quotation omitted).\\n Before turning to the merits of Felton’s claim, we must de‐\\ntermine the appropriate standard of review in this case. Felton\\nargues the Wisconsin Court of Appeals is not entitled to\\nAEDPA deference on either the performance or prejudice\\nprongs of Strickland. As for the performance prong, we agree.\\nBecause the Wisconsin Court of Appeals did not address the\\nperformance prong, we are to review counsel’s performance\\nde novo. Woolley, 702 F.3d at 422.\\n Regarding the prejudice prong, Felton argues that our re‐\\nview also should be de novo because the Wisconsin Court of\\nAppeals unreasonably applied Strickland. See Thomas v. Clem‐\\nents, 789 F.3d 760, 767 (7th Cir. 2015) (reviewing state court’s\\nprejudice prong analysis de novo where the court “only used\\ntwo sentences to address the prejudice prong and did not ac‐\\ntually analyze why there was no prejudice”). First, Felton as‐\\nserts the state appellate court unreasonably applied the Strick‐\\n\\fNo. 18‐1954 23\\n\\nland prejudice standard to the facts by not “independently un‐\\ndertaking a complete review and analysis of the trial and\\npostconviction expert testimony.” Felton, however, did not\\npresent this argument to the district court. “[A]rguments in a\\nfederal habeas petition which were not raised in the district\\ncourt are not properly raised for the first time on appeal.”\\nMertz v. Williams, 771 F.3d 1035, 1043 (7th Cir. 2014). “Regard‐\\nless of whether a habeas claim was fairly presented or de‐\\nfaulted in the state courts, if an argument was not presented\\nto the federal district court, it is forfeited in this court.” Frazier\\nv. Varga, 843 F.3d 258, 262 (7th Cir. 2016). By not presenting it\\nto the district court, Felton similarly forfeited his contention\\nthat the Wisconsin Court of Appeals unreasonably applied\\nStrickland by failing to review counsel’s errors cumulatively.\\nId.3\\n As he did argue before the district court, Felton contends\\nthat he is entitled to de novo review because the state court im‐\\nproperly used an outcome‐determinative test in applying\\nStrickland. Concluding counsel’s failure to object to the prose‐\\ncutor’s closing argument “was not prejudicial,” the Wisconsin\\nCourt of Appeals stated, “[W]e do not believe there is a rea‐\\nsonable probability that it affected the outcome of the trial.”\\nThe Wisconsin Court of Appeals’s use of the word “outcome”\\n\\n 3 The State argues Felton did not fairly present to the state court this\\nclaim of the cumulative prejudicial effects of counsel’s errors, citing Black‐\\nmon v. Williams, 823 F.3d 1088, 1100 (7th Cir. 2016), in which a claim was\\nprocedurally defaulted because petitioner did not raise it before the state\\ncourts. While Felton’s only mention of cumulative review before the Wis‐\\nconsin Court of Appeals was in a subheading of his brief stating, “Indi‐\\nvidually or cumulatively, these deficiencies prejudice Felton,” we need\\nnot undertake a procedural default analysis because Felton also did not\\nassert this argument before the district court.\\n\\f24 No. 18‐1954\\n\\ndoes not mean it applied the outcome‐determinative standard\\nthat the Supreme Court declined to adopt in Strickland, par‐\\nticularly because it is modified by no “reasonable probabil‐\\nity.” 466 U.S. at 693 (declining to adopt an outcome‐determi‐\\nnative standard, “that counsel’s deficient conduct more likely\\nthan not altered the outcome in the case.”) (emphasis added);\\nsee Ruhl v. Hardy, 743 F.3d 1083, 1092 (7th Cir. 2014) (summa‐\\nrizing that to establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a de‐\\nfendant must show, in part, that “there is a reasonable proba‐\\nbility that counsel’s errors affected the outcome of the proceed‐\\ning.”) (emphasis added). We are also unpersuaded by Felton’s\\nargument that the state appellate court’s conclusion that “the\\nState’s case did not hinge on House’s testimony” is proof it\\napplied an outcome‐determinative approach. In so stating,\\nthe Wisconsin Court of Appeals was describing House’s testi‐\\nmony in relation to the other evidence presented at trial, in‐\\ncluding the trial evidence undermining House’s credibility. In\\nother words, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals was stating why\\ncounsel’s failure to object did not “undermine confidence in\\nthe outcome” of the trial. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694. This is\\nexactly what the Wisconsin Court of Appeals was required to\\ndo to determine whether there was a “reasonable probability\\nthat, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the\\nproceeding would have been different.” Id. Therefore, our re‐\\nview of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals’s denial of Felton’s\\nineffective assistance of counsel claim based on prejudice is\\n“highly deferential.” Hinesley v. Knight, 837 F.3d 721, 732 (7th\\nCir. 2016) (quoting Burt v. Titlow, 571 U.S. 12, 18 (2013)).\\n Because we will review the prejudice determination of the\\nWisconsin Court of Appeals for whether it was unreasonable\\nin light of the evidence presented, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2), and\\nStrickland’s performance prong de novo, we will first consider\\n\\fNo. 18‐1954 25\\n\\nthe prejudice prong. Only if Felton prevails on the prejudice\\nprong will we need to consider the performance prong. See\\nStrickland, 466 U.S. at 697 (noting “there is no reason for a\\ncourt deciding an ineffective assistance claim … to address\\nboth components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an in‐\\nsufficient showing on one.”).\\n With the standard of review decided, we turn to the prej‐\\nudice prong of Felton’s ineffective assistance claim. To estab‐\\nlish prejudice, Felton must show “that there is a reasonable\\nprobability that, but for counselʹs unprofessional errors, the\\nresult of the proceeding would have been different. A reason‐\\nable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confi‐\\ndence in the outcome.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694. Felton must\\ndo more than show that “it is possible a reasonable doubt\\nmight have been established if counsel acted differently.”\\nHarrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 111 (2011). “Instead, Strick‐\\nland asks whether it is ‘reasonably likely’ the result would\\nhave been different.” Id. (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 696).\\n“The likelihood of a different result must be substantial, not\\njust conceivable.” Id. at 112.\\n Felton argues his trial counsel erred in two ways: by fail‐\\ning to object to the prosecutor’s closing argument statement\\nregarding the availability of a sentence modification for\\nHouse and by failing to call medical experts at trial. We first\\naddress counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s closing\\nargument. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals held counsel’s\\nfailure to object to the prosecutor’s statement was not preju‐\\ndicial. The state appellate court noted House had credibility\\nissues, citing his criminal history, and counsel diminished the\\nimpact of the State’s statement by noting the availability of a\\n\\f26 No. 18‐1954\\n\\nsentence modification in the future. We conclude that this is\\nnot an unreasonable conclusion in light of the facts.\\n House had a host of credibility problems, and the jury was\\naware of these problems. At the time of trial, House was in jail\\nand had nine or ten prior convictions. He was known as a jail‐\\nhouse lawyer, snitch, and scam artist. Moreover, as trial coun‐\\nsel demonstrated through the jailhouse phone calls, House\\nwas willing to reveal information he obtained while in prison\\nto law enforcement for his own benefit and then later lie un‐\\nder oath about doing just that. Whether House received a ben‐\\nefit for his testimony at Felton’s trial did not diminish House’s\\nsignificant credibility problems. Any objection to the prosecu‐\\ntor’s non‐evidentiary statement in closing argument rebuttal\\nwould not have altered House’s testimony about Felton’s con‐\\nfession. The jury also heard Felton’s counsel’s closing argu‐\\nment where she asserted that House did not receive any ben‐\\nefit yet. Therefore, even if counsel erred by not objecting to the\\nprosecutor’s closing argument rebuttal statement, there was\\nnot a substantial likelihood of a different result had counsel\\nobjected, Strickland, 466 U.S. at 696, and we conclude the Wis‐\\nconsin Court of Appeals was not unreasonable in concluding\\nthat Felton was not prejudiced by counsel’s failure to object,\\ncf. Baer v. Neal, 879 F.3d 769, 788 (7th Cir. 2018) (When review‐\\ning a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, “we are to consider\\nthe prosecutorʹs conduct not in isolation, but in the context of\\nthe trial as a whole, to determine if such conduct was so in‐\\nflammatory and prejudicial to the defendant … as to deprive\\nhim of a fair trial.”) (internal quotations and citations omit‐\\nted).\\n Regarding counsel’s other error, Felton argues having ex‐\\nperts to challenge the State’s medical evidence “was essential\\n\\fNo. 18‐1954 27\\n\\nto the defense because Felton said J.J. accidentally slipped and\\nfell in the bathtub. If experts could show the accident as a\\nplausible cause of death, the jury could harbor reasonable\\ndoubt.” In support of his claim of prejudice, Felton also as‐\\nserts that his experts made two key points: first, there was no\\nmedical evidence to support a diagnosis of shaking, and sec‐\\nond, his experts supported his claim that J.J.’s injuries were\\nthe result of a relatively minor fall.4\\n Taking the second point first, Felton’s medical expert tes‐\\ntimony does not support the theory that J.J.’s bathtub slip and\\nfall caused his death. Those experts testified that J.J.’s injuries\\nwere consistent with a fall from two to four feet or striking\\nsomething with the force of a fall from two to four feet. J.J.\\nwas 24.5 inches tall. Even if J.J. slid from the seated position\\nand hit his head in the tub, such a fall would only have been\\nfrom about one foot and would not have been a free fall, but,\\nrather, a slide from the seated position. Therefore, there is not\\na reasonable probability that Felton would not have been con‐\\nvicted because the habeas medical testimony would not have\\nsupported the claim that J.J.’s death was caused by his bath‐\\ntub fall.\\n Furthermore, both the trial and habeas medical experts\\nagreed that J.J. was not mobile at the time of his death, and\\nthere was no evidence at trial that someone fell while holding\\nJ.J. To the extent that Felton’s theory was that someone else\\n\\n\\n 4 While he argued before the district court that his post‐trial experts\\nrebutted the State’s medical expert testimony regarding when J.J.’s inju‐\\nries were incurred, Felton concedes on appeal that neither sides’ experts\\ncould narrow the timing of the injuries to one particular suspect.\\n\\f28 No. 18‐1954\\n\\nhurt J.J. at the playground, trial counsel elicited testimony\\nfrom Dr. Vardis that, hypothetically, J.J.’s injuries could have\\nbeen the result of a playground fall. And the jury heard testi‐\\nmony about Sasha bumping J.J.’s head on the door frame and\\nmedical testimony from Dr. Taylor that such a bump on the\\nleft side of the head would not have caused J.J.’s injuries. Sim‐\\nilarly, Dr. Barnes testified at the habeas hearing that J.J.’s in‐\\njuries were not the result of an accidental bump to his head.\\n Regarding shaking, it is true that two of the State’s experts\\ntestified at trial that J.J. had been shaken, and according to\\nDr. Vardis, shaken severely, and that Felton’s habeas experts\\nrebutted that testimony citing the absence of a neck injury.\\nShaking, however, was not the only evidence the jury heard\\nabout the cause of death. Dr. Witeck testified that the cause of\\nJ.J.’s death was “head injuries due to blunt force trauma.” And\\neven Dr. Vardis testified that J.J. had been slammed into a\\nhard object, which is consistent with the testimony of Dr.\\nBarnes that even if J.J. had been shaken, his injuries were from\\nsome sort of impact and would not have been from shaking\\nalone. In light of this evidence, the Wisconsin Court of Ap‐\\npeals was not unreasonable in its conclusion that “we are not\\nconvinced that the differences in expert medical testimony\\nwere significant enough to undermine our confidence in the\\noutcome or prevent the real controversy from being tried”.5\\n\\n 5To the extent that Felton’s argument that the state appellate court\\nunreasonably applied Strickland’s prejudice standard to the facts is also an\\nargument that the state appellate court’s decision is “based on an unrea‐\\nsonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the\\nstate court proceeding,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), that argument is unavailing.\\nThe Wisconsin Court of Appeals was critical that Felton’s citations did not\\nsupport particular assertions, were only partially true, or were completely\\nabsent in support of certain claims. Because Felton’s brief was required to\\n\\fNo. 18‐1954 29\\n\\n In support of his claim of prejudice, Felton further argues\\nthat House’s testimony corroborated the State’s medical testi‐\\nmony and, in turn, the State’s medical testimony corroborated\\nHouse’s testimony. House’s testimony, however, did not cor‐\\nroborate the medical evidence in the way Felton asserts in his\\nbrief. Without citation to the record, Felton repeatedly states\\nthat House testified that Felton confessed to shaking and\\nslamming J.J. At trial, though, House never testified about\\nshaking, but rather testified that Felton “swung [the baby]\\ninto the bathroom door.” Further, the habeas medical testi‐\\nmony did not undermine House’s testimony, and, in fact, was\\nsupported in part by Dr. Plunkett’s testimony that J.J. could\\nhave been struck with the same force as a three to four foot\\nfall. Even if the habeas medical experts had testified at trial\\nand Felton’s counsel had objected to the prosecutor’s closing\\nargument, it was not reasonably likely the jury’s decision\\nwould have been different. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 696.\\n Finally, as the Wisconsin Court of Appeals noted, counsel\\npresented evidence that others had “custody of [J.J.] on the\\nday he was admitted to the hospital,” and these alleged errors\\ndid not affect that evidence. Similarly, the unfavorable trial\\ntestimony about Felton was unaffected by these alleged er‐\\nrors. Id. (noting that some errors will not affect some of the\\nfactual findings). Felton’s failure to tell anyone about J.J.’s slip\\n\\ncontain “a statement of facts relevant to the issues presented for review,\\nwith appropriate references to the record,” Wis. Stat. 809.19(1)(d) and\\n“[j]udges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in the record,” Gross\\nv. Town of Cicero, 619 F.3d 697, 702 (7th Cir. 2010), the Wisconsin Court of\\nAppeals’s conclusion about a lack of prejudice was not unreasonable. See\\ngenerally United States v. Lewis, 594 F.3d 1270, 1275 (10th Cir. 2010) (“[I]t is\\nnot this court’s duty to scour without guidance a voluminous record for\\nevidence supporting the government’s theory.”).\\n\\f30 No. 18‐1954\\n\\nin the bathtub, including Sasha when she phoned from work\\nor the hospital physicians, his delay in telling the police J.J.\\nfell in the tub, testimony that he was goofing around while his\\nson was in the NICU suffering severe brain trauma, testimony\\nthat Felton stated at the hospital that he did not want to go to\\njail, testimony that he had limited experience caring for J.J. by\\nhimself, and testimony he compelled his cellmate to sign a re‐\\nquest form he had written in an attempt presumably to un‐\\ndermine House were all unaffected by the errors that Felton\\nnow alleges. And as we discussed above, the habeas medical\\ntestimony would not have supported Felton’s claim about the\\ncause of J.J.’s injury. Accordingly, the Wisconsin Court of Ap‐\\npeals did not unreasonably conclude that Felton was not prej‐\\nudiced by counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s state‐\\nment and failure to call medical experts.\\n III.\\n We AFFIRM the denial of Felton’s petition for a writ of\\nhabeas corpus.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2597,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4631297,"string":"4,631,297"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"DUNCAN PLACE OWNERS ASSOCIATION, on Its Own Behalf and as Assignee of the Association Members, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DANZE, INC., F/K/A Globe Union America Corporation, and Globe Union Group, Inc., Defendants-Appellees."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Duncan Place Owners Associatio v. Danze, Inc."},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-06-19"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"17-3474"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Wood, Bauer, Sykes\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Diane S. Sykes\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 17-3474\\nDUNCAN PLACE OWNERS ASSOCIATION,\\non its own behalf and as assignee\\nof the Association Members,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n\\n v.\\n\\nDANZE, INC., f/k/a GLOBE UNION\\nAMERICA CORPORATION, and\\nGLOBE UNION GROUP, INC.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 15 C 01662 — Edmond E. Chang, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED APRIL 4, 2018 — DECIDED JUNE 19, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and BAUER and SYKES, Circuit\\nJudges.\\n SYKES, Circuit Judge. In 2009 faucets manufactured by\\nIllinois-based Danze, Inc., were installed in all 63 units of a\\nnew condominium building in Seattle, Washington. In the\\n\\f2 No. 17-3474\\n\\nyears that followed, some of the faucets failed, causing\\ndamage to the building and replacement costs. The condo-\\nminium association, Duncan Place Owners Association, filed\\na proposed class-action suit against Danze raising multiple\\nclaims for relief, including breach of express warranty, unjust\\nenrichment, negligence, and strict product liability. The\\ndistrict judge dismissed all but one of the claims and later\\nentered summary judgment on the sole remaining claim.\\n Duncan Place appeals, seeking reinstatement of the\\nclaims that were dismissed on the pleadings. We affirm, with\\none narrow exception. The Washington Product Liability Act\\n(“WPLA” or “the Act”) subsumes all common-law product-\\nliability claims, so we construe Duncan Place’s negligence\\nand strict-liability claims as one cause of action under the\\nAct. In a suit for damages caused by a defective product,\\nWashington’s “independent duty doctrine” (formerly known\\nas the “economic loss doctrine”) generally bars recovery in\\ntort for direct and consequential economic losses stemming\\nfrom the product’s failure—that is, damages associated with\\nthe “injury” to the product itself. But the doctrine does not\\nbar recovery for damage to other property caused by the\\ndefective product. See Eastwood v. Horse Harbor Found., Inc.,\\n241 P.3d 1256, 1265 (Wash. 2010) (en banc). Duncan Place\\nalleges in general terms that the defective faucets caused\\ndamage to other condominium property. To that limited\\nextent, the WPLA claim is not blocked by the independent-\\nduty doctrine and should have been allowed to proceed.\\n Duncan Place’s arguments for reinstatement of its war-\\nranty and unjust-enrichment claims are new on appeal.\\nArguments not raised in the district court are waived, so we\\n\\fNo. 17-3474 3\\n\\naffirm the dismissal of the warranty and unjust-enrichment\\nclaims.\\n I. Background\\n We take the following factual allegations from Duncan\\nPlace’s second amended complaint, accepting them as true\\nfor present purposes. When the Duncan Place condominium\\ncomplex was built in 2009, the developers installed Danze\\nfaucets in the bathrooms of each of the 63 units. The water\\nhoses in Danze’s faucets are made from an inferior low\\nnickel stainless-steel alloy that makes them vulnerable to\\ncorrosion and cracking when put to normal use. As a result\\nseveral of the faucets failed causing “extensive property\\ndamage” and replacement costs.\\n Danze’s “limited lifetime warranty” guarantees the quali-\\nty of its faucets and promises to replace any parts that prove\\ndefective. Nonetheless, Danze refused to repair or replace\\nthe faucets.\\n The Duncan Place Owners Association filed this lawsuit\\nin federal court in the Northern District of Illinois on behalf\\nof itself, the condominium’s 63 unit owners, and a proposed\\nnationwide class of original consumer end-users of Danze\\nfaucets with a steel-braided supply hose. The suit asserted\\nclaims under Washington law, including breach of express\\nwarranty, unjust enrichment, negligence, and strict product\\nliability, as well as other state-law claims that have since\\ndropped out of the case.\\n Danze moved to dismiss on the ground that Duncan\\nPlace lacked associational standing to assert the rights of the\\nunit owners. The judge agreed and dismissed the claims\\nbrought on their behalf. Duncan Place then amended its\\n\\f4 No. 17-3474\\n\\ncomplaint to reflect that it had obtained assignments from 41\\nof the 63 unit owners, eliminating the need for associational\\nstanding to support its assertion of their rights.\\n Danze again moved to dismiss. The judge granted the\\nmotion for the most part. He held that Washington’s\\nindependent-duty doctrine barred the claims of negligence\\nand strict product liability and dismissed them. The judge\\nalso dismissed the unjust-enrichment claim because it was\\npremised on fraud but did not satisfy the heightened plead-\\ning requirements of Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil\\nProcedure.\\n In the same order, the judge explained that to prevail on\\na claim for breach of an express warranty under Washington\\nlaw, a plaintiff must show that he was aware of the warranty.\\nAllegations of that sort did not appear in the amended\\ncomplaint, so the judge gave Duncan Place an opportunity\\nto investigate whether it had a good-faith basis to allege that\\nany of the 41 unit owners knew of the warranty. After sever-\\nal months of investigation, Duncan Place was unable to\\nmake those allegations in good faith with respect to any of\\nthe unit owners. The judge dismissed the express-warranty\\nclaim brought on the unit owners’ behalf.\\n That left only Duncan Place’s own claim for breach of ex-\\npress warranty. The judge eventually entered summary\\njudgment for Danze on that claim, setting up this appeal.\\n II. Discussion\\n Duncan Place does not challenge the judge’s summary-\\njudgment ruling. This appeal focuses instead on the claims\\nthat were dismissed on the pleadings—namely, the claims\\nfor breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, negli-\\n\\fNo. 17-3474 5\\n\\ngence, and product liability. Waiver doctrine precludes our\\nconsideration of some of Duncan Place’s arguments. For\\nwhat remains, our review of the judge’s dismissal order is de\\nnovo. Catinella v. County of Cook, 881 F.3d 514, 518 (7th Cir.\\n2018).\\nA. Warranty and Unjust-Enrichment Claims; Waiver\\n Duncan Place seeks reinstatement of the warranty and\\nunjust-enrichment claims brought on behalf of the unit\\nowners. Its arguments are new on appeal and thus are\\nwaived.\\n Taking the warranty claim first, as we’ve just explained,\\nthe judge ultimately dismissed this claim because Duncan\\nPlace could not allege in good faith that any of the unit\\nowners were aware of Danze’s warranty at the time of\\npurchase. On appeal Duncan Place argues that Washington\\nlaw requires that element if the claim is based on representa-\\ntions contained in advertisements but not if the claim is\\nbased on a standard written warranty like Danze’s lifetime\\nlimited warranty.\\n We don’t need to decide if that is an accurate statement of\\nWashington law. Duncan Place never raised this specific\\nlegal argument in the district court. Normally “a party\\nwaives the ability to make a specific argument for the first\\ntime on appeal when the party failed to present that specific\\nargument to the district court, even though the issue may\\nhave been before the district court in more general terms.”\\nHomoky v. Ogden, 816 F.3d 448, 455 (7th Cir. 2016) (quoting\\nHannemann v. Door Cty. Sch. Dist., 673 F.3d 746, 754 (7th Cir.\\n2012)). There is an exception, however. If the district court\\nraises an issue sua sponte and the appellate brief is the first\\n\\f6 No. 17-3474\\n\\nopportunity to discuss it, the waiver rule does not preclude\\nreview. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Ltd. v. Cent. Nat’l Ins. Co. of Omaha,\\n936 F.2d 319, 323 n.7 (7th Cir. 1991).\\n The exception to the waiver rule doesn’t open the door\\nfor review of this argument. It’s true that the judge sua\\nsponte raised the issue about the unit holder’s knowledge of\\nthe warranty. Ruling on the second motion to dismiss, he\\ninformed the parties that under Washington law the unit\\nowners could prevail on the warranty claim only if they\\nknew of Danze’s warranty at the time of purchase. The\\namended complaint was silent on this subject, so the judge\\ngave Duncan Place an opportunity to file a position state-\\nment clarifying the matter. He also warned that the warranty\\nclaim would be dismissed if Duncan Place’s follow-up\\nsubmission revealed that the unit owners did not know\\nabout the warranty at the time of purchase.\\n In the months that followed, Duncan Place filed three po-\\nsition statements on this subject. In the first and second, it\\nreported that it had been unable to confirm whether 39 of\\nthe 41 unit owners were aware of Danze’s warranty. Two\\nowners initially said they were aware of it but later recanted.\\nIn neither position statement did Duncan Place advance an\\nargument that the knowledge requirement did not apply at\\nall.\\n After the second position statement but before the third,\\nthe judge held a hearing at which Danze announced its\\nintention to renew its motion to dismiss based on Duncan\\nPlace’s inability to allege that the unit owners were aware of\\nthe warranty. Duncan Place did not take this opportunity to\\nargue that Washington law distinguishes between represen-\\n\\fNo. 17-3474 7\\n\\ntations made in advertisements and representations made in\\na standard written warranty like the one at issue here.\\n Soon after this hearing, Duncan Place filed its third and\\nfinal position statement. Like the first two, this one did not\\nso much as hint that the knowledge requirement was inap-\\nplicable because the claim alleged breach of a standard\\nwritten warranty. Rather, Duncan Place asked for more time\\nto investigate the extent of the unit owners’ knowledge. At\\nyet another hearing a few weeks later, the parties again\\ndiscussed the knowledge issue. As before, Duncan Place\\nnever suggested that knowledge of the warranty was not\\nrequired.\\n In short, Duncan Place had multiple opportunities to ad-\\nvance the argument it now raises on appeal. At every turn, it\\nfailed to do so. That’s a waiver. And because Duncan Place\\nmakes no other argument to support reinstatement of the\\nwarranty claim on behalf of the unit owners, we affirm the\\ndismissal of that claim.\\n Next up is the claim for unjust-enrichment. The judge\\nruled that the unjust-enrichment claim is premised on fraud\\nand thus the amended complaint had to satisfy the height-\\nened pleading requirements of Rule 9(b). Because it did not,\\nthe judge dismissed the claim.\\n Duncan Place concedes on appeal that its fraud allega-\\ntions are inadequate under Rule 9(b). It argues instead that\\nthe judge should have excised the fraud allegations and\\nevaluated whether the remaining nonfraud allegations\\nstated a claim for unjust enrichment under Rule 8(a).\\n It is not clear to us that there is anything left of the\\nunjust-enrichment claim if the fraud allegations are disre-\\n\\f8 No. 17-3474\\n\\ngarded. But we don’t need to sort that out. This argument\\ntoo is waived because Duncan Place never raised it in the\\ndistrict court.\\n Duncan Place insists that it preserved the argument by\\ncontending below that Rule 9(b) does not apply at all. But\\nthat general contention is insufficient to preserve the specific\\nargument Duncan Place advances here. See Homoky, 816 F.3d\\nat 455. Duncan Place points out that its response to Danze’s\\nsecond motion to dismiss cited Goodman v. HTC America, Inc.,\\nNo. C11-1793MJP, 2012 WL 2412070, at *9 (W.D. Wash.\\nJune 26, 2012), which discusses the two-step approach that it\\nargues should have been applied here. Goodman indeed\\naddresses that subject, but Duncan Place never drew the\\njudge’s attention to the relevant part of the case. Instead, it\\nrelied on Goodman for a different purpose. Because Duncan\\nPlace raises no other argument to support reinstatement of\\nthe unjust-enrichment claim, we affirm the dismissal of that\\nclaim.\\nB. Product-Liability Claim\\n The judge dismissed Duncan Place’s claims for negli-\\ngence and strict product liability, reasoning that Washing-\\nton’s independent-duty doctrine blocks recovery. That’s\\npartially correct. In a suit for damages caused by a defective\\nproduct, Washington’s independent-duty doctrine generally\\nbars recovery in tort for economic losses associated with the\\ninjury to the product itself, but it does not bar recovery of\\ndamages for injury to other property caused by the defective\\nproduct.\\n At the outset we note that the Washington Product\\nLiability Act “created a single cause of action for product-\\n\\fNo. 17-3474 9\\n\\nrelated harms, and supplants previously existing common\\nlaw remedies, including common law actions for negli-\\ngence.” Wash. State Physicians Ins. Exch. & Ass’n v. Fisons\\nCorp., 858 P.2d 1054, 1066 (Wash. 1993) (en banc); see also\\nWASH. REV. CODE § 7.72.010(4). We therefore construe the\\nclaims styled as negligence and strict product liability as one\\nWPLA claim.\\n Under the WPLA, a manufacturer is liable for harm prox-\\nimately caused by its defective products, WASH. REV. CODE\\n§ 7.72.030(1), but not all harms are cognizable under the Act,\\nid. § 7.72.010(6). Economic losses arising from defective\\nproducts often trigger remedies in both contract and tort,\\nand Washington’s independent-duty doctrine—formerly\\nknown as the economic-loss doctrine—provides a test for\\n“distinguish[ing] between claims where a plaintiff is limited\\nto contract remedies and cases where recovery in tort may be\\navailable.” Eastwood, 241 P.3d at 1261–62.\\n In Eastwood the Washington Supreme Court renamed and\\nsubstantially clarified the contours of the doctrine. The court\\nbegan with the terms of the WPLA, which codified the “tort\\nduty to avoid product designs and construction that are\\nunreasonably dangerous.” 1 Id. at 1265; see WASH. REV. CODE\\n§ 7.72.030(1)–(2). The Act’s definition of “harm” includes\\n“any damages recognized by the courts of this state” but\\nspecifically excludes “direct or consequential economic loss\\nunder Title 62A,” the state’s version of the Uniform Com-\\nmercial Code. WASH. REV. CODE § 7.72.010(6). This limiting\\nlanguage “leav[es] the law of sales contracts as the sole\\n\\n\\n1The Act also covers harm caused by inadequate product warnings, see\\nWASH. REV. CODE § 7.72.030(1)(b)–(c)), but that’s not at issue here.\\n\\f10 No. 17-3474\\n\\nsource of a plaintiff’s remedy for economic loss.” Eastwood,\\n241 P.3d at 1265.\\n But this limitation applies to economic losses associated\\nwith a breach of contractual duties. Under Washington’s\\nindependent-duty doctrine, a product-related injury “is\\nremediable in tort if it traces back to the breach of a tort duty\\narising independently of the terms of the contract.” Id. at\\n1262. To determine whether a harm can be reasonably traced\\nto a tort duty independent of the contract, the Washington\\nSupreme Court has adopted a “risk of harm” test that en-\\ndeavors to “distinguish[] between a harm that implicates\\nonly the contract and a harm that implicates the independ-\\nent [tort] duty as well.” Id. at 1265. Relevant factors in the\\nrisk-of-harm analysis include the nature of the product\\ndefect, the type of risk at issue, and the manner in which the\\ninjury arose. Id.\\n Crucial for our purposes, however, Eastwood explains that\\n“[w]hen a product defect results in a personal injury or\\ndamage to other property, the cause can plainly be a breach of\\nthe tort duty.” Id. (emphasis added). On the other hand,\\n“[w]hen a product defect results in injury only to the prod-\\nuct itself, … the risk of harm must be carefully analyzed.” Id.\\nAccordingly, Washington law allows tort recovery for eco-\\nnomic loss associated with the product’s failure—i.e., tort\\nrecovery for “injury” to the product itself—only if the product\\nis hazardous and poses an unreasonable risk of harm under\\nthe “risk of harm” test, implicating the “safety interests of\\nthe WPLA.” Id.\\n So the first step in the analysis is to determine whether\\nthe plaintiff seeks recovery for losses associated with dam-\\nage to the product itself, on the one hand, or for personal\\n\\fNo. 17-3474 11\\n\\ninjury or damage to other property, on the other. Id. If the\\ninjury falls in the first category, then the next step requires\\napplication of the risk-of-harm test to determine whether the\\ninjury is nonetheless cognizable in tort under the Act. Id. If it\\nfalls in the second category, however, the claim is cognizable\\nunder the Act without further analysis because “the cause\\ncan plainly be a breach of the tort duty” independent of the\\ncontract. Id.\\n Here the judge acknowledged that the claim seeks recov-\\nery for damage to other property—i.e., other parts of the\\ncondominium building—caused by the defective faucets. But\\nhe went on to conduct a risk-of-harm analysis as if Duncan\\nPlace sought to recover for faucet-related injuries alone. That\\nwas error. The amended complaint alleges that Danze’s\\ndefective faucets caused “extensive damage” to the condo-\\nminium building. To that extent, the WPLA claim should\\nhave been allowed to move forward.\\n There is an important limitation, however. As we’ve ex-\\nplained, Duncan Place obtained assignments from 41 unit\\nowners, and everyone agrees that it may assert the rights of\\nthose unit owners. On remand the WPLA claim may proceed\\nto the extent that it alleges that Danze’s defective faucets\\ncaused damage to other property in those 41 units. As it\\nstands, the amended complaint contains specific allegations\\nonly with respect to two unit owners; the allegations about\\n“extensive damage” to the condominium building are\\notherwise quite general. These generalized allegations\\nsupport an inference that the defective faucets caused dam-\\nage to common condominium property as well, and we take\\nthis to mean that the homeowners’ association also asserts\\n\\f12 No. 17-3474\\n\\nthis claim on its own behalf. To that additional extent, the\\nclaim may proceed to factual development.\\n Finally, Duncan Place insists that it may also assert the\\nrights of the unit owners from whom it did not obtain\\nassignments. This argument verges on frivolous. “[W]hether\\nan association has standing to invoke the court’s remedial\\npowers on behalf of its members depends in substantial\\nmeasure on the nature of the relief sought.” Warth v. Seldin,\\n422 U.S. 490, 515 (1975). “‘[I]ndividual participation’ is not\\nnormally necessary when an association seeks prospective or\\ninjunctive relief for its members, but … such participation\\nwould be required in an action for damages to an associa-\\ntion’s members … .” United Food & Commercial Workers Union\\nLocal 751 v. Brown Grp., Inc., 517 U.S. 544, 546 (1996) (citing\\nHunt v. Wash. State Apple Advert. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 343\\n(1977)). Associational standing is inappropriate if “whatever\\ninjury may have been suffered is peculiar to the individual\\nmembers concerned, and both the fact and extent of injury\\nwould require individualized proof.” Warth, 422 U.S. at 515–\\n16; see also Sanner v. Bd. of Trade of City of Chi., 62 F.3d 918, 923\\n(7th Cir. 1995) (forbidding a farming association from assert-\\ning standing on behalf of its members where the suit would\\n“require the calculation of damages for each of the individu-\\nal farmers”).\\n Duncan Place has no viable claim for prospective relief.\\nWhat it casts as a plea for declaratory and injunctive relief is\\ninstead a straightforward claim for damages. Duncan Place\\nseeks a declaration announcing that all Danze faucets manu-\\nfactured from 2000 to the present have defects of which\\n\\fNo. 17-3474 13\\n\\nDanze was well aware. 2 This request reflects a misunder-\\nstanding of the purpose of declaratory judgments. A declara-\\ntory judgment serves to “settle the particular controversy\\nand clarify the legal relations at issue.” NUCOR Corp., v.\\nAceros Y Maquilas de Occidente, S.A. de C.V., 28 F.3d 572, 579\\n(7th Cir. 1994) (quoting Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Am. Mut. Liab.\\nIns. Co., 372 F.2d 435, 438 (7th Cir. 1967)). A declaration that\\nDanze produced defective faucets would not settle the\\ncontroversy between Duncan Place and Danze or clarify\\ntheir legal relationship. It would only lay the groundwork\\nfor a claim for damages.\\n And associational standing cannot support a damages\\nclaim on behalf of the nonassigning unit owners. There’s no\\nquestion that each unit owner with a viable claim would\\nhave to provide “individualized proof” of “the fact and\\nextent of injury” to the condominium unit. Warth, 422 U.S. at\\n515–16.\\n In sum, we AFFIRM the dismissal of Duncan Place’s war-\\nranty and unjust-enrichment claims, REVERSE the dismissal\\nof Duncan Place’s WPLA claim, and REMAND for further\\nproceedings consistent with this opinion.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n2Duncan Place also seeks declaratory and injunctive relief regarding\\nDanze’s failure to honor its warranty. We’re affirming the dismissal of the\\nwarranty claim, so we need say no more about associational standing to\\npursue these remedies.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4408550/\", \"author_raw\": \"Diane S. Sykes\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"WOOD"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"BAUER"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"SYKES"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4631297/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":6,"string":"6"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: DUNCAN PLACE OWNERS ASSOCIATION, on Its Own Behalf and as Assignee of the Association Members, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DANZE, INC., F/K/A Globe Union America Corporation, and Globe Union Group, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-06-19\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 17-3474\nDUNCAN PLACE OWNERS ASSOCIATION,\non its own behalf and as assignee\nof the Association Members,\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\n\n v.\n\nDANZE, INC., f/k/a GLOBE UNION\nAMERICA CORPORATION, and\nGLOBE UNION GROUP, INC.,\n Defendants-Appellees.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 15 C 01662 — Edmond E. Chang, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED APRIL 4, 2018 — DECIDED JUNE 19, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and BAUER and SYKES, Circuit\nJudges.\n SYKES, Circuit Judge. In 2009 faucets manufactured by\nIllinois-based Danze, Inc., were installed in all 63 units of a\nnew condominium building in Seattle, Washington. In the\n\f2 No. 17-3474\n\nyears that followed, some of the faucets failed, causing\ndamage to the building and replacement costs. The condo-\nminium association, Duncan Place Owners Association, filed\na proposed class-action suit against Danze raising multiple\nclaims for relief, including breach of express warranty, unjust\nenrichment, negligence, and strict product liability. The\ndistrict judge dismissed all but one of the claims and later\nentered summary judgment on the sole remaining claim.\n Duncan Place appeals, seeking reinstatement of the\nclaims that were dismissed on the pleadings. We affirm, with\none narrow exception. The Washington Product Liability Act\n(“WPLA” or “the Act”) subsumes all common-law product-\nliability claims, so we construe Duncan Place’s negligence\nand strict-liability claims as one cause of action under the\nAct. In a suit for damages caused by a defective product,\nWashington’s “independent duty doctrine” (formerly known\nas the “economic loss doctrine”) generally bars recovery in\ntort for direct and consequential economic losses stemming\nfrom the product’s failure—that is, damages associated with\nthe “injury” to the product itself. But the doctrine does not\nbar recovery for damage to other property caused by the\ndefective product. See Eastwood v. Horse Harbor Found., Inc.,\n241 P.3d 1256, 1265 (Wash. 2010) (en banc). Duncan Place\nalleges in general terms that the defective faucets caused\ndamage to other condominium property. To that limited\nextent, the WPLA claim is not blocked by the independent-\nduty doctrine and should have been allowed to proceed.\n Duncan Place’s arguments for reinstatement of its war-\nranty and unjust-enrichment claims are new on appeal.\nArguments not raised in the district court are waived, so we\n\fNo. 17-3474 3\n\naffirm the dismissal of the warranty and unjust-enrichment\nclaims.\n I. Background\n We take the following factual allegations from Duncan\nPlace’s second amended complaint, accepting them as true\nfor present purposes. When the Duncan Place condominium\ncomplex was built in 2009, the developers installed Danze\nfaucets in the bathrooms of each of the 63 units. The water\nhoses in Danze’s faucets are made from an inferior low\nnickel stainless-steel alloy that makes them vulnerable to\ncorrosion and cracking when put to normal use. As a result\nseveral of the faucets failed causing “extensive property\ndamage” and replacement costs.\n Danze’s “limited lifetime warranty” guarantees the quali-\nty of its faucets and promises to replace any parts that prove\ndefective. Nonetheless, Danze refused to repair or replace\nthe faucets.\n The Duncan Place Owners Association filed this lawsuit\nin federal court in the Northern District of Illinois on behalf\nof itself, the condominium’s 63 unit owners, and a proposed\nnationwide class of original consumer end-users of Danze\nfaucets with a steel-braided supply hose. The suit asserted\nclaims under Washington law, including breach of express\nwarranty, unjust enrichment, negligence, and strict product\nliability, as well as other state-law claims that have since\ndropped out of the case.\n Danze moved to dismiss on the ground that Duncan\nPlace lacked associational standing to assert the rights of the\nunit owners. The judge agreed and dismissed the claims\nbrought on their behalf. Duncan Place then amended its\n\f4 No. 17-3474\n\ncomplaint to reflect that it had obtained assignments from 41\nof the 63 unit owners, eliminating the need for associational\nstanding to support its assertion of their rights.\n Danze again moved to dismiss. The judge granted the\nmotion for the most part. He held that Washington’s\nindependent-duty doctrine barred the claims of negligence\nand strict product liability and dismissed them. The judge\nalso dismissed the unjust-enrichment claim because it was\npremised on fraud but did not satisfy the heightened plead-\ning requirements of Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil\nProcedure.\n In the same order, the judge explained that to prevail on\na claim for breach of an express warranty under Washington\nlaw, a plaintiff must show that he was aware of the warranty.\nAllegations of that sort did not appear in the amended\ncomplaint, so the judge gave Duncan Place an opportunity\nto investigate whether it had a good-faith basis to allege that\nany of the 41 unit owners knew of the warranty. After sever-\nal months of investigation, Duncan Place was unable to\nmake those allegations in good faith with respect to any of\nthe unit owners. The judge dismissed the express-warranty\nclaim brought on the unit owners’ behalf.\n That left only Duncan Place’s own claim for breach of ex-\npress warranty. The judge eventually entered summary\njudgment for Danze on that claim, setting up this appeal.\n II. Discussion\n Duncan Place does not challenge the judge’s summary-\njudgment ruling. This appeal focuses instead on the claims\nthat were dismissed on the pleadings—namely, the claims\nfor breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, negli-\n\fNo. 17-3474 5\n\ngence, and product liability. Waiver doctrine precludes our\nconsideration of some of Duncan Place’s arguments. For\nwhat remains, our review of the judge’s dismissal order is de\nnovo. Catinella v. County of Cook, 881 F.3d 514, 518 (7th Cir.\n2018).\nA. Warranty and Unjust-Enrichment Claims; Waiver\n Duncan Place seeks reinstatement of the warranty and\nunjust-enrichment claims brought on behalf of the unit\nowners. Its arguments are new on appeal and thus are\nwaived.\n Taking the warranty claim first, as we’ve just explained,\nthe judge ultimately dismissed this claim because Duncan\nPlace could not allege in good faith that any of the unit\nowners were aware of Danze’s warranty at the time of\npurchase. On appeal Duncan Place argues that Washington\nlaw requires that element if the claim is based on representa-\ntions contained in advertisements but not if the claim is\nbased on a standard written warranty like Danze’s lifetime\nlimited warranty.\n We don’t need to decide if that is an accurate statement of\nWashington law. Duncan Place never raised this specific\nlegal argument in the district court. Normally “a party\nwaives the ability to make a specific argument for the first\ntime on appeal when the party failed to present that specific\nargument to the district court, even though the issue may\nhave been before the district court in more general terms.”\nHomoky v. Ogden, 816 F.3d 448, 455 (7th Cir. 2016) (quoting\nHannemann v. Door Cty. Sch. Dist., 673 F.3d 746, 754 (7th Cir.\n2012)). There is an exception, however. If the district court\nraises an issue sua sponte and the appellate brief is the first\n\f6 No. 17-3474\n\nopportunity to discuss it, the waiver rule does not preclude\nreview. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Ltd. v. Cent. Nat’l Ins. Co. of Omaha,\n936 F.2d 319, 323 n.7 (7th Cir. 1991).\n The exception to the waiver rule doesn’t open the door\nfor review of this argument. It’s true that the judge sua\nsponte raised the issue about the unit holder’s knowledge of\nthe warranty. Ruling on the second motion to dismiss, he\ninformed the parties that under Washington law the unit\nowners could prevail on the warranty claim only if they\nknew of Danze’s warranty at the time of purchase. The\namended complaint was silent on this subject, so the judge\ngave Duncan Place an opportunity to file a position state-\nment clarifying the matter. He also warned that the warranty\nclaim would be dismissed if Duncan Place’s follow-up\nsubmission revealed that the unit owners did not know\nabout the warranty at the time of purchase.\n In the months that followed, Duncan Place filed three po-\nsition statements on this subject. In the first and second, it\nreported that it had been unable to confirm whether 39 of\nthe 41 unit owners were aware of Danze’s warranty. Two\nowners initially said they were aware of it but later recanted.\nIn neither position statement did Duncan Place advance an\nargument that the knowledge requirement did not apply at\nall.\n After the second position statement but before the third,\nthe judge held a hearing at which Danze announced its\nintention to renew its motion to dismiss based on Duncan\nPlace’s inability to allege that the unit owners were aware of\nthe warranty. Duncan Place did not take this opportunity to\nargue that Washington law distinguishes between represen-\n\fNo. 17-3474 7\n\ntations made in advertisements and representations made in\na standard written warranty like the one at issue here.\n Soon after this hearing, Duncan Place filed its third and\nfinal position statement. Like the first two, this one did not\nso much as hint that the knowledge requirement was inap-\nplicable because the claim alleged breach of a standard\nwritten warranty. Rather, Duncan Place asked for more time\nto investigate the extent of the unit owners’ knowledge. At\nyet another hearing a few weeks later, the parties again\ndiscussed the knowledge issue. As before, Duncan Place\nnever suggested that knowledge of the warranty was not\nrequired.\n In short, Duncan Place had multiple opportunities to ad-\nvance the argument it now raises on appeal. At every turn, it\nfailed to do so. That’s a waiver. And because Duncan Place\nmakes no other argument to support reinstatement of the\nwarranty claim on behalf of the unit owners, we affirm the\ndismissal of that claim.\n Next up is the claim for unjust-enrichment. The judge\nruled that the unjust-enrichment claim is premised on fraud\nand thus the amended complaint had to satisfy the height-\nened pleading requirements of Rule 9(b). Because it did not,\nthe judge dismissed the claim.\n Duncan Place concedes on appeal that its fraud allega-\ntions are inadequate under Rule 9(b). It argues instead that\nthe judge should have excised the fraud allegations and\nevaluated whether the remaining nonfraud allegations\nstated a claim for unjust enrichment under Rule 8(a).\n It is not clear to us that there is anything left of the\nunjust-enrichment claim if the fraud allegations are disre-\n\f8 No. 17-3474\n\ngarded. But we don’t need to sort that out. This argument\ntoo is waived because Duncan Place never raised it in the\ndistrict court.\n Duncan Place insists that it preserved the argument by\ncontending below that Rule 9(b) does not apply at all. But\nthat general contention is insufficient to preserve the specific\nargument Duncan Place advances here. See Homoky, 816 F.3d\nat 455. Duncan Place points out that its response to Danze’s\nsecond motion to dismiss cited Goodman v. HTC America, Inc.,\nNo. C11-1793MJP, 2012 WL 2412070, at *9 (W.D. Wash.\nJune 26, 2012), which discusses the two-step approach that it\nargues should have been applied here. Goodman indeed\naddresses that subject, but Duncan Place never drew the\njudge’s attention to the relevant part of the case. Instead, it\nrelied on Goodman for a different purpose. Because Duncan\nPlace raises no other argument to support reinstatement of\nthe unjust-enrichment claim, we affirm the dismissal of that\nclaim.\nB. Product-Liability Claim\n The judge dismissed Duncan Place’s claims for negli-\ngence and strict product liability, reasoning that Washing-\nton’s independent-duty doctrine blocks recovery. That’s\npartially correct. In a suit for damages caused by a defective\nproduct, Washington’s independent-duty doctrine generally\nbars recovery in tort for economic losses associated with the\ninjury to the product itself, but it does not bar recovery of\ndamages for injury to other property caused by the defective\nproduct.\n At the outset we note that the Washington Product\nLiability Act “created a single cause of action for product-\n\fNo. 17-3474 9\n\nrelated harms, and supplants previously existing common\nlaw remedies, including common law actions for negli-\ngence.” Wash. State Physicians Ins. Exch. & Ass’n v. Fisons\nCorp., 858 P.2d 1054, 1066 (Wash. 1993) (en banc); see also\nWASH. REV. CODE § 7.72.010(4). We therefore construe the\nclaims styled as negligence and strict product liability as one\nWPLA claim.\n Under the WPLA, a manufacturer is liable for harm prox-\nimately caused by its defective products, WASH. REV. CODE\n§ 7.72.030(1), but not all harms are cognizable under the Act,\nid. § 7.72.010(6). Economic losses arising from defective\nproducts often trigger remedies in both contract and tort,\nand Washington’s independent-duty doctrine—formerly\nknown as the economic-loss doctrine—provides a test for\n“distinguish[ing] between claims where a plaintiff is limited\nto contract remedies and cases where recovery in tort may be\navailable.” Eastwood, 241 P.3d at 1261–62.\n In Eastwood the Washington Supreme Court renamed and\nsubstantially clarified the contours of the doctrine. The court\nbegan with the terms of the WPLA, which codified the “tort\nduty to avoid product designs and construction that are\nunreasonably dangerous.” 1 Id. at 1265; see WASH. REV. CODE\n§ 7.72.030(1)–(2). The Act’s definition of “harm” includes\n“any damages recognized by the courts of this state” but\nspecifically excludes “direct or consequential economic loss\nunder Title 62A,” the state’s version of the Uniform Com-\nmercial Code. WASH. REV. CODE § 7.72.010(6). This limiting\nlanguage “leav[es] the law of sales contracts as the sole\n\n\n1The Act also covers harm caused by inadequate product warnings, see\nWASH. REV. CODE § 7.72.030(1)(b)–(c)), but that’s not at issue here.\n\f10 No. 17-3474\n\nsource of a plaintiff’s remedy for economic loss.” Eastwood,\n241 P.3d at 1265.\n But this limitation applies to economic losses associated\nwith a breach of contractual duties. Under Washington’s\nindependent-duty doctrine, a product-related injury “is\nremediable in tort if it traces back to the breach of a tort duty\narising independently of the terms of the contract.” Id. at\n1262. To determine whether a harm can be reasonably traced\nto a tort duty independent of the contract, the Washington\nSupreme Court has adopted a “risk of harm” test that en-\ndeavors to “distinguish[] between a harm that implicates\nonly the contract and a harm that implicates the independ-\nent [tort] duty as well.” Id. at 1265. Relevant factors in the\nrisk-of-harm analysis include the nature of the product\ndefect, the type of risk at issue, and the manner in which the\ninjury arose. Id.\n Crucial for our purposes, however, Eastwood explains that\n“[w]hen a product defect results in a personal injury or\ndamage to other property, the cause can plainly be a breach of\nthe tort duty.” Id. (emphasis added). On the other hand,\n“[w]hen a product defect results in injury only to the prod-\nuct itself, … the risk of harm must be carefully analyzed.” Id.\nAccordingly, Washington law allows tort recovery for eco-\nnomic loss associated with the product’s failure—i.e., tort\nrecovery for “injury” to the product itself—only if the product\nis hazardous and poses an unreasonable risk of harm under\nthe “risk of harm” test, implicating the “safety interests of\nthe WPLA.” Id.\n So the first step in the analysis is to determine whether\nthe plaintiff seeks recovery for losses associated with dam-\nage to the product itself, on the one hand, or for personal\n\fNo. 17-3474 11\n\ninjury or damage to other property, on the other. Id. If the\ninjury falls in the first category, then the next step requires\napplication of the risk-of-harm test to determine whether the\ninjury is nonetheless cognizable in tort under the Act. Id. If it\nfalls in the second category, however, the claim is cognizable\nunder the Act without further analysis because “the cause\ncan plainly be a breach of the tort duty” independent of the\ncontract. Id.\n Here the judge acknowledged that the claim seeks recov-\nery for damage to other property—i.e., other parts of the\ncondominium building—caused by the defective faucets. But\nhe went on to conduct a risk-of-harm analysis as if Duncan\nPlace sought to recover for faucet-related injuries alone. That\nwas error. The amended complaint alleges that Danze’s\ndefective faucets caused “extensive damage” to the condo-\nminium building. To that extent, the WPLA claim should\nhave been allowed to move forward.\n There is an important limitation, however. As we’ve ex-\nplained, Duncan Place obtained assignments from 41 unit\nowners, and everyone agrees that it may assert the rights of\nthose unit owners. On remand the WPLA claim may proceed\nto the extent that it alleges that Danze’s defective faucets\ncaused damage to other property in those 41 units. As it\nstands, the amended complaint contains specific allegations\nonly with respect to two unit owners; the allegations about\n“extensive damage” to the condominium building are\notherwise quite general. These generalized allegations\nsupport an inference that the defective faucets caused dam-\nage to common condominium property as well, and we take\nthis to mean that the homeowners’ association also asserts\n\f12 No. 17-3474\n\nthis claim on its own behalf. To that additional extent, the\nclaim may proceed to factual development.\n Finally, Duncan Place insists that it may also assert the\nrights of the unit owners from whom it did not obtain\nassignments. This argument verges on frivolous. “[W]hether\nan association has standing to invoke the court’s remedial\npowers on behalf of its members depends in substantial\nmeasure on the nature of the relief sought.” Warth v. Seldin,\n422 U.S. 490, 515 (1975). “‘[I]ndividual participation’ is not\nnormally necessary when an association seeks prospective or\ninjunctive relief for its members, but … such participation\nwould be required in an action for damages to an associa-\ntion’s members … .” United Food & Commercial Workers Union\nLocal 751 v. Brown Grp., Inc., 517 U.S. 544, 546 (1996) (citing\nHunt v. Wash. State Apple Advert. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 343\n(1977)). Associational standing is inappropriate if “whatever\ninjury may have been suffered is peculiar to the individual\nmembers concerned, and both the fact and extent of injury\nwould require individualized proof.” Warth, 422 U.S. at 515–\n16; see also Sanner v. Bd. of Trade of City of Chi., 62 F.3d 918, 923\n(7th Cir. 1995) (forbidding a farming association from assert-\ning standing on behalf of its members where the suit would\n“require the calculation of damages for each of the individu-\nal farmers”).\n Duncan Place has no viable claim for prospective relief.\nWhat it casts as a plea for declaratory and injunctive relief is\ninstead a straightforward claim for damages. Duncan Place\nseeks a declaration announcing that all Danze faucets manu-\nfactured from 2000 to the present have defects of which\n\fNo. 17-3474 13\n\nDanze was well aware. 2 This request reflects a misunder-\nstanding of the purpose of declaratory judgments. A declara-\ntory judgment serves to “settle the particular controversy\nand clarify the legal relations at issue.” NUCOR Corp., v.\nAceros Y Maquilas de Occidente, S.A. de C.V., 28 F.3d 572, 579\n(7th Cir. 1994) (quoting Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Am. Mut. Liab.\nIns. Co., 372 F.2d 435, 438 (7th Cir. 1967)). A declaration that\nDanze produced defective faucets would not settle the\ncontroversy between Duncan Place and Danze or clarify\ntheir legal relationship. It would only lay the groundwork\nfor a claim for damages.\n And associational standing cannot support a damages\nclaim on behalf of the nonassigning unit owners. There’s no\nquestion that each unit owner with a viable claim would\nhave to provide “individualized proof” of “the fact and\nextent of injury” to the condominium unit. Warth, 422 U.S. at\n515–16.\n In sum, we AFFIRM the dismissal of Duncan Place’s war-\nranty and unjust-enrichment claims, REVERSE the dismissal\nof Duncan Place’s WPLA claim, and REMAND for further\nproceedings consistent with this opinion.\n\n\n\n\n2Duncan Place also seeks declaratory and injunctive relief regarding\nDanze’s failure to honor its warranty. We’re affirming the dismissal of the\nwarranty claim, so we need say no more about associational standing to\npursue these remedies.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: DUNCAN PLACE OWNERS ASSOCIATION, on Its Own Behalf and as Assignee of the Association Members, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DANZE, INC., F/K/A Globe Union America Corporation, and Globe Union Group, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-06-19\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 17-3474\\nDUNCAN PLACE OWNERS ASSOCIATION,\\non its own behalf and as assignee\\nof the Association Members,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n\\n v.\\n\\nDANZE, INC., f/k/a GLOBE UNION\\nAMERICA CORPORATION, and\\nGLOBE UNION GROUP, INC.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 15 C 01662 — Edmond E. Chang, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED APRIL 4, 2018 — DECIDED JUNE 19, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and BAUER and SYKES, Circuit\\nJudges.\\n SYKES, Circuit Judge. In 2009 faucets manufactured by\\nIllinois-based Danze, Inc., were installed in all 63 units of a\\nnew condominium building in Seattle, Washington. In the\\n\\f2 No. 17-3474\\n\\nyears that followed, some of the faucets failed, causing\\ndamage to the building and replacement costs. The condo-\\nminium association, Duncan Place Owners Association, filed\\na proposed class-action suit against Danze raising multiple\\nclaims for relief, including breach of express warranty, unjust\\nenrichment, negligence, and strict product liability. The\\ndistrict judge dismissed all but one of the claims and later\\nentered summary judgment on the sole remaining claim.\\n Duncan Place appeals, seeking reinstatement of the\\nclaims that were dismissed on the pleadings. We affirm, with\\none narrow exception. The Washington Product Liability Act\\n(“WPLA” or “the Act”) subsumes all common-law product-\\nliability claims, so we construe Duncan Place’s negligence\\nand strict-liability claims as one cause of action under the\\nAct. In a suit for damages caused by a defective product,\\nWashington’s “independent duty doctrine” (formerly known\\nas the “economic loss doctrine”) generally bars recovery in\\ntort for direct and consequential economic losses stemming\\nfrom the product’s failure—that is, damages associated with\\nthe “injury” to the product itself. But the doctrine does not\\nbar recovery for damage to other property caused by the\\ndefective product. See Eastwood v. Horse Harbor Found., Inc.,\\n241 P.3d 1256, 1265 (Wash. 2010) (en banc). Duncan Place\\nalleges in general terms that the defective faucets caused\\ndamage to other condominium property. To that limited\\nextent, the WPLA claim is not blocked by the independent-\\nduty doctrine and should have been allowed to proceed.\\n Duncan Place’s arguments for reinstatement of its war-\\nranty and unjust-enrichment claims are new on appeal.\\nArguments not raised in the district court are waived, so we\\n\\fNo. 17-3474 3\\n\\naffirm the dismissal of the warranty and unjust-enrichment\\nclaims.\\n I. Background\\n We take the following factual allegations from Duncan\\nPlace’s second amended complaint, accepting them as true\\nfor present purposes. When the Duncan Place condominium\\ncomplex was built in 2009, the developers installed Danze\\nfaucets in the bathrooms of each of the 63 units. The water\\nhoses in Danze’s faucets are made from an inferior low\\nnickel stainless-steel alloy that makes them vulnerable to\\ncorrosion and cracking when put to normal use. As a result\\nseveral of the faucets failed causing “extensive property\\ndamage” and replacement costs.\\n Danze’s “limited lifetime warranty” guarantees the quali-\\nty of its faucets and promises to replace any parts that prove\\ndefective. Nonetheless, Danze refused to repair or replace\\nthe faucets.\\n The Duncan Place Owners Association filed this lawsuit\\nin federal court in the Northern District of Illinois on behalf\\nof itself, the condominium’s 63 unit owners, and a proposed\\nnationwide class of original consumer end-users of Danze\\nfaucets with a steel-braided supply hose. The suit asserted\\nclaims under Washington law, including breach of express\\nwarranty, unjust enrichment, negligence, and strict product\\nliability, as well as other state-law claims that have since\\ndropped out of the case.\\n Danze moved to dismiss on the ground that Duncan\\nPlace lacked associational standing to assert the rights of the\\nunit owners. The judge agreed and dismissed the claims\\nbrought on their behalf. Duncan Place then amended its\\n\\f4 No. 17-3474\\n\\ncomplaint to reflect that it had obtained assignments from 41\\nof the 63 unit owners, eliminating the need for associational\\nstanding to support its assertion of their rights.\\n Danze again moved to dismiss. The judge granted the\\nmotion for the most part. He held that Washington’s\\nindependent-duty doctrine barred the claims of negligence\\nand strict product liability and dismissed them. The judge\\nalso dismissed the unjust-enrichment claim because it was\\npremised on fraud but did not satisfy the heightened plead-\\ning requirements of Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil\\nProcedure.\\n In the same order, the judge explained that to prevail on\\na claim for breach of an express warranty under Washington\\nlaw, a plaintiff must show that he was aware of the warranty.\\nAllegations of that sort did not appear in the amended\\ncomplaint, so the judge gave Duncan Place an opportunity\\nto investigate whether it had a good-faith basis to allege that\\nany of the 41 unit owners knew of the warranty. After sever-\\nal months of investigation, Duncan Place was unable to\\nmake those allegations in good faith with respect to any of\\nthe unit owners. The judge dismissed the express-warranty\\nclaim brought on the unit owners’ behalf.\\n That left only Duncan Place’s own claim for breach of ex-\\npress warranty. The judge eventually entered summary\\njudgment for Danze on that claim, setting up this appeal.\\n II. Discussion\\n Duncan Place does not challenge the judge’s summary-\\njudgment ruling. This appeal focuses instead on the claims\\nthat were dismissed on the pleadings—namely, the claims\\nfor breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, negli-\\n\\fNo. 17-3474 5\\n\\ngence, and product liability. Waiver doctrine precludes our\\nconsideration of some of Duncan Place’s arguments. For\\nwhat remains, our review of the judge’s dismissal order is de\\nnovo. Catinella v. County of Cook, 881 F.3d 514, 518 (7th Cir.\\n2018).\\nA. Warranty and Unjust-Enrichment Claims; Waiver\\n Duncan Place seeks reinstatement of the warranty and\\nunjust-enrichment claims brought on behalf of the unit\\nowners. Its arguments are new on appeal and thus are\\nwaived.\\n Taking the warranty claim first, as we’ve just explained,\\nthe judge ultimately dismissed this claim because Duncan\\nPlace could not allege in good faith that any of the unit\\nowners were aware of Danze’s warranty at the time of\\npurchase. On appeal Duncan Place argues that Washington\\nlaw requires that element if the claim is based on representa-\\ntions contained in advertisements but not if the claim is\\nbased on a standard written warranty like Danze’s lifetime\\nlimited warranty.\\n We don’t need to decide if that is an accurate statement of\\nWashington law. Duncan Place never raised this specific\\nlegal argument in the district court. Normally “a party\\nwaives the ability to make a specific argument for the first\\ntime on appeal when the party failed to present that specific\\nargument to the district court, even though the issue may\\nhave been before the district court in more general terms.”\\nHomoky v. Ogden, 816 F.3d 448, 455 (7th Cir. 2016) (quoting\\nHannemann v. Door Cty. Sch. Dist., 673 F.3d 746, 754 (7th Cir.\\n2012)). There is an exception, however. If the district court\\nraises an issue sua sponte and the appellate brief is the first\\n\\f6 No. 17-3474\\n\\nopportunity to discuss it, the waiver rule does not preclude\\nreview. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Ltd. v. Cent. Nat’l Ins. Co. of Omaha,\\n936 F.2d 319, 323 n.7 (7th Cir. 1991).\\n The exception to the waiver rule doesn’t open the door\\nfor review of this argument. It’s true that the judge sua\\nsponte raised the issue about the unit holder’s knowledge of\\nthe warranty. Ruling on the second motion to dismiss, he\\ninformed the parties that under Washington law the unit\\nowners could prevail on the warranty claim only if they\\nknew of Danze’s warranty at the time of purchase. The\\namended complaint was silent on this subject, so the judge\\ngave Duncan Place an opportunity to file a position state-\\nment clarifying the matter. He also warned that the warranty\\nclaim would be dismissed if Duncan Place’s follow-up\\nsubmission revealed that the unit owners did not know\\nabout the warranty at the time of purchase.\\n In the months that followed, Duncan Place filed three po-\\nsition statements on this subject. In the first and second, it\\nreported that it had been unable to confirm whether 39 of\\nthe 41 unit owners were aware of Danze’s warranty. Two\\nowners initially said they were aware of it but later recanted.\\nIn neither position statement did Duncan Place advance an\\nargument that the knowledge requirement did not apply at\\nall.\\n After the second position statement but before the third,\\nthe judge held a hearing at which Danze announced its\\nintention to renew its motion to dismiss based on Duncan\\nPlace’s inability to allege that the unit owners were aware of\\nthe warranty. Duncan Place did not take this opportunity to\\nargue that Washington law distinguishes between represen-\\n\\fNo. 17-3474 7\\n\\ntations made in advertisements and representations made in\\na standard written warranty like the one at issue here.\\n Soon after this hearing, Duncan Place filed its third and\\nfinal position statement. Like the first two, this one did not\\nso much as hint that the knowledge requirement was inap-\\nplicable because the claim alleged breach of a standard\\nwritten warranty. Rather, Duncan Place asked for more time\\nto investigate the extent of the unit owners’ knowledge. At\\nyet another hearing a few weeks later, the parties again\\ndiscussed the knowledge issue. As before, Duncan Place\\nnever suggested that knowledge of the warranty was not\\nrequired.\\n In short, Duncan Place had multiple opportunities to ad-\\nvance the argument it now raises on appeal. At every turn, it\\nfailed to do so. That’s a waiver. And because Duncan Place\\nmakes no other argument to support reinstatement of the\\nwarranty claim on behalf of the unit owners, we affirm the\\ndismissal of that claim.\\n Next up is the claim for unjust-enrichment. The judge\\nruled that the unjust-enrichment claim is premised on fraud\\nand thus the amended complaint had to satisfy the height-\\nened pleading requirements of Rule 9(b). Because it did not,\\nthe judge dismissed the claim.\\n Duncan Place concedes on appeal that its fraud allega-\\ntions are inadequate under Rule 9(b). It argues instead that\\nthe judge should have excised the fraud allegations and\\nevaluated whether the remaining nonfraud allegations\\nstated a claim for unjust enrichment under Rule 8(a).\\n It is not clear to us that there is anything left of the\\nunjust-enrichment claim if the fraud allegations are disre-\\n\\f8 No. 17-3474\\n\\ngarded. But we don’t need to sort that out. This argument\\ntoo is waived because Duncan Place never raised it in the\\ndistrict court.\\n Duncan Place insists that it preserved the argument by\\ncontending below that Rule 9(b) does not apply at all. But\\nthat general contention is insufficient to preserve the specific\\nargument Duncan Place advances here. See Homoky, 816 F.3d\\nat 455. Duncan Place points out that its response to Danze’s\\nsecond motion to dismiss cited Goodman v. HTC America, Inc.,\\nNo. C11-1793MJP, 2012 WL 2412070, at *9 (W.D. Wash.\\nJune 26, 2012), which discusses the two-step approach that it\\nargues should have been applied here. Goodman indeed\\naddresses that subject, but Duncan Place never drew the\\njudge’s attention to the relevant part of the case. Instead, it\\nrelied on Goodman for a different purpose. Because Duncan\\nPlace raises no other argument to support reinstatement of\\nthe unjust-enrichment claim, we affirm the dismissal of that\\nclaim.\\nB. Product-Liability Claim\\n The judge dismissed Duncan Place’s claims for negli-\\ngence and strict product liability, reasoning that Washing-\\nton’s independent-duty doctrine blocks recovery. That’s\\npartially correct. In a suit for damages caused by a defective\\nproduct, Washington’s independent-duty doctrine generally\\nbars recovery in tort for economic losses associated with the\\ninjury to the product itself, but it does not bar recovery of\\ndamages for injury to other property caused by the defective\\nproduct.\\n At the outset we note that the Washington Product\\nLiability Act “created a single cause of action for product-\\n\\fNo. 17-3474 9\\n\\nrelated harms, and supplants previously existing common\\nlaw remedies, including common law actions for negli-\\ngence.” Wash. State Physicians Ins. Exch. & Ass’n v. Fisons\\nCorp., 858 P.2d 1054, 1066 (Wash. 1993) (en banc); see also\\nWASH. REV. CODE § 7.72.010(4). We therefore construe the\\nclaims styled as negligence and strict product liability as one\\nWPLA claim.\\n Under the WPLA, a manufacturer is liable for harm prox-\\nimately caused by its defective products, WASH. REV. CODE\\n§ 7.72.030(1), but not all harms are cognizable under the Act,\\nid. § 7.72.010(6). Economic losses arising from defective\\nproducts often trigger remedies in both contract and tort,\\nand Washington’s independent-duty doctrine—formerly\\nknown as the economic-loss doctrine—provides a test for\\n“distinguish[ing] between claims where a plaintiff is limited\\nto contract remedies and cases where recovery in tort may be\\navailable.” Eastwood, 241 P.3d at 1261–62.\\n In Eastwood the Washington Supreme Court renamed and\\nsubstantially clarified the contours of the doctrine. The court\\nbegan with the terms of the WPLA, which codified the “tort\\nduty to avoid product designs and construction that are\\nunreasonably dangerous.” 1 Id. at 1265; see WASH. REV. CODE\\n§ 7.72.030(1)–(2). The Act’s definition of “harm” includes\\n“any damages recognized by the courts of this state” but\\nspecifically excludes “direct or consequential economic loss\\nunder Title 62A,” the state’s version of the Uniform Com-\\nmercial Code. WASH. REV. CODE § 7.72.010(6). This limiting\\nlanguage “leav[es] the law of sales contracts as the sole\\n\\n\\n1The Act also covers harm caused by inadequate product warnings, see\\nWASH. REV. CODE § 7.72.030(1)(b)–(c)), but that’s not at issue here.\\n\\f10 No. 17-3474\\n\\nsource of a plaintiff’s remedy for economic loss.” Eastwood,\\n241 P.3d at 1265.\\n But this limitation applies to economic losses associated\\nwith a breach of contractual duties. Under Washington’s\\nindependent-duty doctrine, a product-related injury “is\\nremediable in tort if it traces back to the breach of a tort duty\\narising independently of the terms of the contract.” Id. at\\n1262. To determine whether a harm can be reasonably traced\\nto a tort duty independent of the contract, the Washington\\nSupreme Court has adopted a “risk of harm” test that en-\\ndeavors to “distinguish[] between a harm that implicates\\nonly the contract and a harm that implicates the independ-\\nent [tort] duty as well.” Id. at 1265. Relevant factors in the\\nrisk-of-harm analysis include the nature of the product\\ndefect, the type of risk at issue, and the manner in which the\\ninjury arose. Id.\\n Crucial for our purposes, however, Eastwood explains that\\n“[w]hen a product defect results in a personal injury or\\ndamage to other property, the cause can plainly be a breach of\\nthe tort duty.” Id. (emphasis added). On the other hand,\\n“[w]hen a product defect results in injury only to the prod-\\nuct itself, … the risk of harm must be carefully analyzed.” Id.\\nAccordingly, Washington law allows tort recovery for eco-\\nnomic loss associated with the product’s failure—i.e., tort\\nrecovery for “injury” to the product itself—only if the product\\nis hazardous and poses an unreasonable risk of harm under\\nthe “risk of harm” test, implicating the “safety interests of\\nthe WPLA.” Id.\\n So the first step in the analysis is to determine whether\\nthe plaintiff seeks recovery for losses associated with dam-\\nage to the product itself, on the one hand, or for personal\\n\\fNo. 17-3474 11\\n\\ninjury or damage to other property, on the other. Id. If the\\ninjury falls in the first category, then the next step requires\\napplication of the risk-of-harm test to determine whether the\\ninjury is nonetheless cognizable in tort under the Act. Id. If it\\nfalls in the second category, however, the claim is cognizable\\nunder the Act without further analysis because “the cause\\ncan plainly be a breach of the tort duty” independent of the\\ncontract. Id.\\n Here the judge acknowledged that the claim seeks recov-\\nery for damage to other property—i.e., other parts of the\\ncondominium building—caused by the defective faucets. But\\nhe went on to conduct a risk-of-harm analysis as if Duncan\\nPlace sought to recover for faucet-related injuries alone. That\\nwas error. The amended complaint alleges that Danze’s\\ndefective faucets caused “extensive damage” to the condo-\\nminium building. To that extent, the WPLA claim should\\nhave been allowed to move forward.\\n There is an important limitation, however. As we’ve ex-\\nplained, Duncan Place obtained assignments from 41 unit\\nowners, and everyone agrees that it may assert the rights of\\nthose unit owners. On remand the WPLA claim may proceed\\nto the extent that it alleges that Danze’s defective faucets\\ncaused damage to other property in those 41 units. As it\\nstands, the amended complaint contains specific allegations\\nonly with respect to two unit owners; the allegations about\\n“extensive damage” to the condominium building are\\notherwise quite general. These generalized allegations\\nsupport an inference that the defective faucets caused dam-\\nage to common condominium property as well, and we take\\nthis to mean that the homeowners’ association also asserts\\n\\f12 No. 17-3474\\n\\nthis claim on its own behalf. To that additional extent, the\\nclaim may proceed to factual development.\\n Finally, Duncan Place insists that it may also assert the\\nrights of the unit owners from whom it did not obtain\\nassignments. This argument verges on frivolous. “[W]hether\\nan association has standing to invoke the court’s remedial\\npowers on behalf of its members depends in substantial\\nmeasure on the nature of the relief sought.” Warth v. Seldin,\\n422 U.S. 490, 515 (1975). “‘[I]ndividual participation’ is not\\nnormally necessary when an association seeks prospective or\\ninjunctive relief for its members, but … such participation\\nwould be required in an action for damages to an associa-\\ntion’s members … .” United Food & Commercial Workers Union\\nLocal 751 v. Brown Grp., Inc., 517 U.S. 544, 546 (1996) (citing\\nHunt v. Wash. State Apple Advert. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 343\\n(1977)). Associational standing is inappropriate if “whatever\\ninjury may have been suffered is peculiar to the individual\\nmembers concerned, and both the fact and extent of injury\\nwould require individualized proof.” Warth, 422 U.S. at 515–\\n16; see also Sanner v. Bd. of Trade of City of Chi., 62 F.3d 918, 923\\n(7th Cir. 1995) (forbidding a farming association from assert-\\ning standing on behalf of its members where the suit would\\n“require the calculation of damages for each of the individu-\\nal farmers”).\\n Duncan Place has no viable claim for prospective relief.\\nWhat it casts as a plea for declaratory and injunctive relief is\\ninstead a straightforward claim for damages. Duncan Place\\nseeks a declaration announcing that all Danze faucets manu-\\nfactured from 2000 to the present have defects of which\\n\\fNo. 17-3474 13\\n\\nDanze was well aware. 2 This request reflects a misunder-\\nstanding of the purpose of declaratory judgments. A declara-\\ntory judgment serves to “settle the particular controversy\\nand clarify the legal relations at issue.” NUCOR Corp., v.\\nAceros Y Maquilas de Occidente, S.A. de C.V., 28 F.3d 572, 579\\n(7th Cir. 1994) (quoting Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Am. Mut. Liab.\\nIns. Co., 372 F.2d 435, 438 (7th Cir. 1967)). A declaration that\\nDanze produced defective faucets would not settle the\\ncontroversy between Duncan Place and Danze or clarify\\ntheir legal relationship. It would only lay the groundwork\\nfor a claim for damages.\\n And associational standing cannot support a damages\\nclaim on behalf of the nonassigning unit owners. There’s no\\nquestion that each unit owner with a viable claim would\\nhave to provide “individualized proof” of “the fact and\\nextent of injury” to the condominium unit. Warth, 422 U.S. at\\n515–16.\\n In sum, we AFFIRM the dismissal of Duncan Place’s war-\\nranty and unjust-enrichment claims, REVERSE the dismissal\\nof Duncan Place’s WPLA claim, and REMAND for further\\nproceedings consistent with this opinion.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n2Duncan Place also seeks declaratory and injunctive relief regarding\\nDanze’s failure to honor its warranty. We’re affirming the dismissal of the\\nwarranty claim, so we need say no more about associational standing to\\npursue these remedies.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2598,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4631323,"string":"4,631,323"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Duncan Place Owners Associatio v. Danze, Inc."},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-06-19"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"17-3474"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and BAUER and SYKES, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Diane S. Sykes\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 17-3474\\nDUNCAN PLACE OWNERS ASSOCIATION,\\non its own behalf and as assignee\\nof the Association Members,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n\\n v.\\n\\nDANZE, INC., f/k/a GLOBE UNION\\nAMERICA CORPORATION, and\\nGLOBE UNION GROUP, INC.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 15 C 01662 — Edmond E. Chang, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED APRIL 4, 2018 — DECIDED JUNE 19, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and BAUER and SYKES, Circuit\\nJudges.\\n SYKES, Circuit Judge. In 2009 faucets manufactured by\\nIllinois-based Danze, Inc., were installed in all 63 units of a\\nnew condominium building in Seattle, Washington. In the\\n\\f2 No. 17-3474\\n\\nyears that followed, some of the faucets failed, causing\\ndamage to the building and replacement costs. The condo-\\nminium association, Duncan Place Owners Association, filed\\na proposed class-action suit against Danze raising multiple\\nclaims for relief, including breach of express warranty, unjust\\nenrichment, negligence, and strict product liability. The\\ndistrict judge dismissed all but one of the claims and later\\nentered summary judgment on the sole remaining claim.\\n Duncan Place appeals, seeking reinstatement of the\\nclaims that were dismissed on the pleadings. We affirm, with\\none narrow exception. The Washington Product Liability Act\\n(“WPLA” or “the Act”) subsumes all common-law product-\\nliability claims, so we construe Duncan Place’s negligence\\nand strict-liability claims as one cause of action under the\\nAct. In a suit for damages caused by a defective product,\\nWashington’s “independent duty doctrine” (formerly known\\nas the “economic loss doctrine”) generally bars recovery in\\ntort for direct and consequential economic losses stemming\\nfrom the product’s failure—that is, damages associated with\\nthe “injury” to the product itself. But the doctrine does not\\nbar recovery for damage to other property caused by the\\ndefective product. See Eastwood v. Horse Harbor Found., Inc.,\\n241 P.3d 1256, 1265 (Wash. 2010) (en banc). Duncan Place\\nalleges in general terms that the defective faucets caused\\ndamage to other condominium property. To that limited\\nextent, the WPLA claim is not blocked by the independent-\\nduty doctrine and should have been allowed to proceed.\\n Duncan Place’s arguments for reinstatement of its war-\\nranty and unjust-enrichment claims are new on appeal.\\nArguments not raised in the district court are waived, so we\\n\\fNo. 17-3474 3\\n\\naffirm the dismissal of the warranty and unjust-enrichment\\nclaims.\\n I. Background\\n We take the following factual allegations from Duncan\\nPlace’s second amended complaint, accepting them as true\\nfor present purposes. When the Duncan Place condominium\\ncomplex was built in 2009, the developers installed Danze\\nfaucets in the bathrooms of each of the 63 units. The water\\nhoses in Danze’s faucets are made from an inferior low\\nnickel stainless-steel alloy that makes them vulnerable to\\ncorrosion and cracking when put to normal use. As a result\\nseveral of the faucets failed causing “extensive property\\ndamage” and replacement costs.\\n Danze’s “limited lifetime warranty” guarantees the quali-\\nty of its faucets and promises to replace any parts that prove\\ndefective. Nonetheless, Danze refused to repair or replace\\nthe faucets.\\n The Duncan Place Owners Association filed this lawsuit\\nin federal court in the Northern District of Illinois on behalf\\nof itself, the condominium’s 63 unit owners, and a proposed\\nnationwide class of original consumer end-users of Danze\\nfaucets with a steel-braided supply hose. The suit asserted\\nclaims under Washington law, including breach of express\\nwarranty, unjust enrichment, negligence, and strict product\\nliability, as well as other state-law claims that have since\\ndropped out of the case.\\n Danze moved to dismiss on the ground that Duncan\\nPlace lacked associational standing to assert the rights of the\\nunit owners. The judge agreed and dismissed the claims\\nbrought on their behalf. Duncan Place then amended its\\n\\f4 No. 17-3474\\n\\ncomplaint to reflect that it had obtained assignments from 41\\nof the 63 unit owners, eliminating the need for associational\\nstanding to support its assertion of their rights.\\n Danze again moved to dismiss. The judge granted the\\nmotion for the most part. He held that Washington’s\\nindependent-duty doctrine barred the claims of negligence\\nand strict product liability and dismissed them. The judge\\nalso dismissed the unjust-enrichment claim because it was\\npremised on fraud but did not satisfy the heightened plead-\\ning requirements of Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil\\nProcedure.\\n In the same order, the judge explained that to prevail on\\na claim for breach of an express warranty under Washington\\nlaw, a plaintiff must show that he was aware of the warranty.\\nAllegations of that sort did not appear in the amended\\ncomplaint, so the judge gave Duncan Place an opportunity\\nto investigate whether it had a good-faith basis to allege that\\nany of the 41 unit owners knew of the warranty. After sever-\\nal months of investigation, Duncan Place was unable to\\nmake those allegations in good faith with respect to any of\\nthe unit owners. The judge dismissed the express-warranty\\nclaim brought on the unit owners’ behalf.\\n That left only Duncan Place’s own claim for breach of ex-\\npress warranty. The judge eventually entered summary\\njudgment for Danze on that claim, setting up this appeal.\\n II. Discussion\\n Duncan Place does not challenge the judge’s summary-\\njudgment ruling. This appeal focuses instead on the claims\\nthat were dismissed on the pleadings—namely, the claims\\nfor breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, negli-\\n\\fNo. 17-3474 5\\n\\ngence, and product liability. Waiver doctrine precludes our\\nconsideration of some of Duncan Place’s arguments. For\\nwhat remains, our review of the judge’s dismissal order is de\\nnovo. Catinella v. County of Cook, 881 F.3d 514, 518 (7th Cir.\\n2018).\\nA. Warranty and Unjust-Enrichment Claims; Waiver\\n Duncan Place seeks reinstatement of the warranty and\\nunjust-enrichment claims brought on behalf of the unit\\nowners. Its arguments are new on appeal and thus are\\nwaived.\\n Taking the warranty claim first, as we’ve just explained,\\nthe judge ultimately dismissed this claim because Duncan\\nPlace could not allege in good faith that any of the unit\\nowners were aware of Danze’s warranty at the time of\\npurchase. On appeal Duncan Place argues that Washington\\nlaw requires that element if the claim is based on representa-\\ntions contained in advertisements but not if the claim is\\nbased on a standard written warranty like Danze’s lifetime\\nlimited warranty.\\n We don’t need to decide if that is an accurate statement of\\nWashington law. Duncan Place never raised this specific\\nlegal argument in the district court. Normally “a party\\nwaives the ability to make a specific argument for the first\\ntime on appeal when the party failed to present that specific\\nargument to the district court, even though the issue may\\nhave been before the district court in more general terms.”\\nHomoky v. Ogden, 816 F.3d 448, 455 (7th Cir. 2016) (quoting\\nHannemann v. Door Cty. Sch. Dist., 673 F.3d 746, 754 (7th Cir.\\n2012)). There is an exception, however. If the district court\\nraises an issue sua sponte and the appellate brief is the first\\n\\f6 No. 17-3474\\n\\nopportunity to discuss it, the waiver rule does not preclude\\nreview. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Ltd. v. Cent. Nat’l Ins. Co. of Omaha,\\n936 F.2d 319, 323 n.7 (7th Cir. 1991).\\n The exception to the waiver rule doesn’t open the door\\nfor review of this argument. It’s true that the judge sua\\nsponte raised the issue about the unit holder’s knowledge of\\nthe warranty. Ruling on the second motion to dismiss, he\\ninformed the parties that under Washington law the unit\\nowners could prevail on the warranty claim only if they\\nknew of Danze’s warranty at the time of purchase. The\\namended complaint was silent on this subject, so the judge\\ngave Duncan Place an opportunity to file a position state-\\nment clarifying the matter. He also warned that the warranty\\nclaim would be dismissed if Duncan Place’s follow-up\\nsubmission revealed that the unit owners did not know\\nabout the warranty at the time of purchase.\\n In the months that followed, Duncan Place filed three po-\\nsition statements on this subject. In the first and second, it\\nreported that it had been unable to confirm whether 39 of\\nthe 41 unit owners were aware of Danze’s warranty. Two\\nowners initially said they were aware of it but later recanted.\\nIn neither position statement did Duncan Place advance an\\nargument that the knowledge requirement did not apply at\\nall.\\n After the second position statement but before the third,\\nthe judge held a hearing at which Danze announced its\\nintention to renew its motion to dismiss based on Duncan\\nPlace’s inability to allege that the unit owners were aware of\\nthe warranty. Duncan Place did not take this opportunity to\\nargue that Washington law distinguishes between represen-\\n\\fNo. 17-3474 7\\n\\ntations made in advertisements and representations made in\\na standard written warranty like the one at issue here.\\n Soon after this hearing, Duncan Place filed its third and\\nfinal position statement. Like the first two, this one did not\\nso much as hint that the knowledge requirement was inap-\\nplicable because the claim alleged breach of a standard\\nwritten warranty. Rather, Duncan Place asked for more time\\nto investigate the extent of the unit owners’ knowledge. At\\nyet another hearing a few weeks later, the parties again\\ndiscussed the knowledge issue. As before, Duncan Place\\nnever suggested that knowledge of the warranty was not\\nrequired.\\n In short, Duncan Place had multiple opportunities to ad-\\nvance the argument it now raises on appeal. At every turn, it\\nfailed to do so. That’s a waiver. And because Duncan Place\\nmakes no other argument to support reinstatement of the\\nwarranty claim on behalf of the unit owners, we affirm the\\ndismissal of that claim.\\n Next up is the claim for unjust-enrichment. The judge\\nruled that the unjust-enrichment claim is premised on fraud\\nand thus the amended complaint had to satisfy the height-\\nened pleading requirements of Rule 9(b). Because it did not,\\nthe judge dismissed the claim.\\n Duncan Place concedes on appeal that its fraud allega-\\ntions are inadequate under Rule 9(b). It argues instead that\\nthe judge should have excised the fraud allegations and\\nevaluated whether the remaining nonfraud allegations\\nstated a claim for unjust enrichment under Rule 8(a).\\n It is not clear to us that there is anything left of the\\nunjust-enrichment claim if the fraud allegations are disre-\\n\\f8 No. 17-3474\\n\\ngarded. But we don’t need to sort that out. This argument\\ntoo is waived because Duncan Place never raised it in the\\ndistrict court.\\n Duncan Place insists that it preserved the argument by\\ncontending below that Rule 9(b) does not apply at all. But\\nthat general contention is insufficient to preserve the specific\\nargument Duncan Place advances here. See Homoky, 816 F.3d\\nat 455. Duncan Place points out that its response to Danze’s\\nsecond motion to dismiss cited Goodman v. HTC America, Inc.,\\nNo. C11-1793MJP, 2012 WL 2412070, at *9 (W.D. Wash.\\nJune 26, 2012), which discusses the two-step approach that it\\nargues should have been applied here. Goodman indeed\\naddresses that subject, but Duncan Place never drew the\\njudge’s attention to the relevant part of the case. Instead, it\\nrelied on Goodman for a different purpose. Because Duncan\\nPlace raises no other argument to support reinstatement of\\nthe unjust-enrichment claim, we affirm the dismissal of that\\nclaim.\\nB. Product-Liability Claim\\n The judge dismissed Duncan Place’s claims for negli-\\ngence and strict product liability, reasoning that Washing-\\nton’s independent-duty doctrine blocks recovery. That’s\\npartially correct. In a suit for damages caused by a defective\\nproduct, Washington’s independent-duty doctrine generally\\nbars recovery in tort for economic losses associated with the\\ninjury to the product itself, but it does not bar recovery of\\ndamages for injury to other property caused by the defective\\nproduct.\\n At the outset we note that the Washington Product\\nLiability Act “created a single cause of action for product-\\n\\fNo. 17-3474 9\\n\\nrelated harms, and supplants previously existing common\\nlaw remedies, including common law actions for negli-\\ngence.” Wash. State Physicians Ins. Exch. & Ass’n v. Fisons\\nCorp., 858 P.2d 1054, 1066 (Wash. 1993) (en banc); see also\\nWASH. REV. CODE § 7.72.010(4). We therefore construe the\\nclaims styled as negligence and strict product liability as one\\nWPLA claim.\\n Under the WPLA, a manufacturer is liable for harm prox-\\nimately caused by its defective products, WASH. REV. CODE\\n§ 7.72.030(1), but not all harms are cognizable under the Act,\\nid. § 7.72.010(6). Economic losses arising from defective\\nproducts often trigger remedies in both contract and tort,\\nand Washington’s independent-duty doctrine—formerly\\nknown as the economic-loss doctrine—provides a test for\\n“distinguish[ing] between claims where a plaintiff is limited\\nto contract remedies and cases where recovery in tort may be\\navailable.” Eastwood, 241 P.3d at 1261–62.\\n In Eastwood the Washington Supreme Court renamed and\\nsubstantially clarified the contours of the doctrine. The court\\nbegan with the terms of the WPLA, which codified the “tort\\nduty to avoid product designs and construction that are\\nunreasonably dangerous.” 1 Id. at 1265; see WASH. REV. CODE\\n§ 7.72.030(1)–(2). The Act’s definition of “harm” includes\\n“any damages recognized by the courts of this state” but\\nspecifically excludes “direct or consequential economic loss\\nunder Title 62A,” the state’s version of the Uniform Com-\\nmercial Code. WASH. REV. CODE § 7.72.010(6). This limiting\\nlanguage “leav[es] the law of sales contracts as the sole\\n\\n\\n1The Act also covers harm caused by inadequate product warnings, see\\nWASH. REV. CODE § 7.72.030(1)(b)–(c)), but that’s not at issue here.\\n\\f10 No. 17-3474\\n\\nsource of a plaintiff’s remedy for economic loss.” Eastwood,\\n241 P.3d at 1265.\\n But this limitation applies to economic losses associated\\nwith a breach of contractual duties. Under Washington’s\\nindependent-duty doctrine, a product-related injury “is\\nremediable in tort if it traces back to the breach of a tort duty\\narising independently of the terms of the contract.” Id. at\\n1262. To determine whether a harm can be reasonably traced\\nto a tort duty independent of the contract, the Washington\\nSupreme Court has adopted a “risk of harm” test that en-\\ndeavors to “distinguish[] between a harm that implicates\\nonly the contract and a harm that implicates the independ-\\nent [tort] duty as well.” Id. at 1265. Relevant factors in the\\nrisk-of-harm analysis include the nature of the product\\ndefect, the type of risk at issue, and the manner in which the\\ninjury arose. Id.\\n Crucial for our purposes, however, Eastwood explains that\\n“[w]hen a product defect results in a personal injury or\\ndamage to other property, the cause can plainly be a breach of\\nthe tort duty.” Id. (emphasis added). On the other hand,\\n“[w]hen a product defect results in injury only to the prod-\\nuct itself, … the risk of harm must be carefully analyzed.” Id.\\nAccordingly, Washington law allows tort recovery for eco-\\nnomic loss associated with the product’s failure—i.e., tort\\nrecovery for “injury” to the product itself—only if the product\\nis hazardous and poses an unreasonable risk of harm under\\nthe “risk of harm” test, implicating the “safety interests of\\nthe WPLA.” Id.\\n So the first step in the analysis is to determine whether\\nthe plaintiff seeks recovery for losses associated with dam-\\nage to the product itself, on the one hand, or for personal\\n\\fNo. 17-3474 11\\n\\ninjury or damage to other property, on the other. Id. If the\\ninjury falls in the first category, then the next step requires\\napplication of the risk-of-harm test to determine whether the\\ninjury is nonetheless cognizable in tort under the Act. Id. If it\\nfalls in the second category, however, the claim is cognizable\\nunder the Act without further analysis because “the cause\\ncan plainly be a breach of the tort duty” independent of the\\ncontract. Id.\\n Here the judge acknowledged that the claim seeks recov-\\nery for damage to other property—i.e., other parts of the\\ncondominium building—caused by the defective faucets. But\\nhe went on to conduct a risk-of-harm analysis as if Duncan\\nPlace sought to recover for faucet-related injuries alone. That\\nwas error. The amended complaint alleges that Danze’s\\ndefective faucets caused “extensive damage” to the condo-\\nminium building. To that extent, the WPLA claim should\\nhave been allowed to move forward.\\n There is an important limitation, however. As we’ve ex-\\nplained, Duncan Place obtained assignments from 41 unit\\nowners, and everyone agrees that it may assert the rights of\\nthose unit owners. On remand the WPLA claim may proceed\\nto the extent that it alleges that Danze’s defective faucets\\ncaused damage to other property in those 41 units. As it\\nstands, the amended complaint contains specific allegations\\nonly with respect to two unit owners; the allegations about\\n“extensive damage” to the condominium building are\\notherwise quite general. These generalized allegations\\nsupport an inference that the defective faucets caused dam-\\nage to common condominium property as well, and we take\\nthis to mean that the homeowners’ association also asserts\\n\\f12 No. 17-3474\\n\\nthis claim on its own behalf. To that additional extent, the\\nclaim may proceed to factual development.\\n Finally, Duncan Place insists that it may also assert the\\nrights of the unit owners from whom it did not obtain\\nassignments. This argument verges on frivolous. “[W]hether\\nan association has standing to invoke the court’s remedial\\npowers on behalf of its members depends in substantial\\nmeasure on the nature of the relief sought.” Warth v. Seldin,\\n422 U.S. 490, 515 (1975). “‘[I]ndividual participation’ is not\\nnormally necessary when an association seeks prospective or\\ninjunctive relief for its members, but … such participation\\nwould be required in an action for damages to an associa-\\ntion’s members … .” United Food & Commercial Workers Union\\nLocal 751 v. Brown Grp., Inc., 517 U.S. 544, 546 (1996) (citing\\nHunt v. Wash. State Apple Advert. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 343\\n(1977)). Associational standing is inappropriate if “whatever\\ninjury may have been suffered is peculiar to the individual\\nmembers concerned, and both the fact and extent of injury\\nwould require individualized proof.” Warth, 422 U.S. at 515–\\n16; see also Sanner v. Bd. of Trade of City of Chi., 62 F.3d 918, 923\\n(7th Cir. 1995) (forbidding a farming association from assert-\\ning standing on behalf of its members where the suit would\\n“require the calculation of damages for each of the individu-\\nal farmers”).\\n Duncan Place has no viable claim for prospective relief.\\nWhat it casts as a plea for declaratory and injunctive relief is\\ninstead a straightforward claim for damages. Duncan Place\\nseeks a declaration announcing that all Danze faucets manu-\\nfactured from 2000 to the present have defects of which\\n\\fNo. 17-3474 13\\n\\nDanze was well aware. 2 This request reflects a misunder-\\nstanding of the purpose of declaratory judgments. A declara-\\ntory judgment serves to “settle the particular controversy\\nand clarify the legal relations at issue.” NUCOR Corp., v.\\nAceros Y Maquilas de Occidente, S.A. de C.V., 28 F.3d 572, 579\\n(7th Cir. 1994) (quoting Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Am. Mut. Liab.\\nIns. Co., 372 F.2d 435, 438 (7th Cir. 1967)). A declaration that\\nDanze produced defective faucets would not settle the\\ncontroversy between Duncan Place and Danze or clarify\\ntheir legal relationship. It would only lay the groundwork\\nfor a claim for damages.\\n And associational standing cannot support a damages\\nclaim on behalf of the nonassigning unit owners. There’s no\\nquestion that each unit owner with a viable claim would\\nhave to provide “individualized proof” of “the fact and\\nextent of injury” to the condominium unit. Warth, 422 U.S. at\\n515–16.\\n In sum, we AFFIRM the dismissal of Duncan Place’s war-\\nranty and unjust-enrichment claims, REVERSE the dismissal\\nof Duncan Place’s WPLA claim, and REMAND for further\\nproceedings consistent with this opinion.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n2Duncan Place also seeks declaratory and injunctive relief regarding\\nDanze’s failure to honor its warranty. We’re affirming the dismissal of the\\nwarranty claim, so we need say no more about associational standing to\\npursue these remedies.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4408576/\", \"author_raw\": \"Diane S. Sykes\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"WOOD"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"BAUER"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"SYKES"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"WOOD\": \", Chief\", \"BAUER\": \", Circuit\", \"SYKES\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4631323/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":6,"string":"6"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Duncan Place Owners Associatio v. Danze, Inc.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-06-19\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 17-3474\nDUNCAN PLACE OWNERS ASSOCIATION,\non its own behalf and as assignee\nof the Association Members,\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\n\n v.\n\nDANZE, INC., f/k/a GLOBE UNION\nAMERICA CORPORATION, and\nGLOBE UNION GROUP, INC.,\n Defendants-Appellees.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 15 C 01662 — Edmond E. Chang, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED APRIL 4, 2018 — DECIDED JUNE 19, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and BAUER and SYKES, Circuit\nJudges.\n SYKES, Circuit Judge. In 2009 faucets manufactured by\nIllinois-based Danze, Inc., were installed in all 63 units of a\nnew condominium building in Seattle, Washington. In the\n\f2 No. 17-3474\n\nyears that followed, some of the faucets failed, causing\ndamage to the building and replacement costs. The condo-\nminium association, Duncan Place Owners Association, filed\na proposed class-action suit against Danze raising multiple\nclaims for relief, including breach of express warranty, unjust\nenrichment, negligence, and strict product liability. The\ndistrict judge dismissed all but one of the claims and later\nentered summary judgment on the sole remaining claim.\n Duncan Place appeals, seeking reinstatement of the\nclaims that were dismissed on the pleadings. We affirm, with\none narrow exception. The Washington Product Liability Act\n(“WPLA” or “the Act”) subsumes all common-law product-\nliability claims, so we construe Duncan Place’s negligence\nand strict-liability claims as one cause of action under the\nAct. In a suit for damages caused by a defective product,\nWashington’s “independent duty doctrine” (formerly known\nas the “economic loss doctrine”) generally bars recovery in\ntort for direct and consequential economic losses stemming\nfrom the product’s failure—that is, damages associated with\nthe “injury” to the product itself. But the doctrine does not\nbar recovery for damage to other property caused by the\ndefective product. See Eastwood v. Horse Harbor Found., Inc.,\n241 P.3d 1256, 1265 (Wash. 2010) (en banc). Duncan Place\nalleges in general terms that the defective faucets caused\ndamage to other condominium property. To that limited\nextent, the WPLA claim is not blocked by the independent-\nduty doctrine and should have been allowed to proceed.\n Duncan Place’s arguments for reinstatement of its war-\nranty and unjust-enrichment claims are new on appeal.\nArguments not raised in the district court are waived, so we\n\fNo. 17-3474 3\n\naffirm the dismissal of the warranty and unjust-enrichment\nclaims.\n I. Background\n We take the following factual allegations from Duncan\nPlace’s second amended complaint, accepting them as true\nfor present purposes. When the Duncan Place condominium\ncomplex was built in 2009, the developers installed Danze\nfaucets in the bathrooms of each of the 63 units. The water\nhoses in Danze’s faucets are made from an inferior low\nnickel stainless-steel alloy that makes them vulnerable to\ncorrosion and cracking when put to normal use. As a result\nseveral of the faucets failed causing “extensive property\ndamage” and replacement costs.\n Danze’s “limited lifetime warranty” guarantees the quali-\nty of its faucets and promises to replace any parts that prove\ndefective. Nonetheless, Danze refused to repair or replace\nthe faucets.\n The Duncan Place Owners Association filed this lawsuit\nin federal court in the Northern District of Illinois on behalf\nof itself, the condominium’s 63 unit owners, and a proposed\nnationwide class of original consumer end-users of Danze\nfaucets with a steel-braided supply hose. The suit asserted\nclaims under Washington law, including breach of express\nwarranty, unjust enrichment, negligence, and strict product\nliability, as well as other state-law claims that have since\ndropped out of the case.\n Danze moved to dismiss on the ground that Duncan\nPlace lacked associational standing to assert the rights of the\nunit owners. The judge agreed and dismissed the claims\nbrought on their behalf. Duncan Place then amended its\n\f4 No. 17-3474\n\ncomplaint to reflect that it had obtained assignments from 41\nof the 63 unit owners, eliminating the need for associational\nstanding to support its assertion of their rights.\n Danze again moved to dismiss. The judge granted the\nmotion for the most part. He held that Washington’s\nindependent-duty doctrine barred the claims of negligence\nand strict product liability and dismissed them. The judge\nalso dismissed the unjust-enrichment claim because it was\npremised on fraud but did not satisfy the heightened plead-\ning requirements of Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil\nProcedure.\n In the same order, the judge explained that to prevail on\na claim for breach of an express warranty under Washington\nlaw, a plaintiff must show that he was aware of the warranty.\nAllegations of that sort did not appear in the amended\ncomplaint, so the judge gave Duncan Place an opportunity\nto investigate whether it had a good-faith basis to allege that\nany of the 41 unit owners knew of the warranty. After sever-\nal months of investigation, Duncan Place was unable to\nmake those allegations in good faith with respect to any of\nthe unit owners. The judge dismissed the express-warranty\nclaim brought on the unit owners’ behalf.\n That left only Duncan Place’s own claim for breach of ex-\npress warranty. The judge eventually entered summary\njudgment for Danze on that claim, setting up this appeal.\n II. Discussion\n Duncan Place does not challenge the judge’s summary-\njudgment ruling. This appeal focuses instead on the claims\nthat were dismissed on the pleadings—namely, the claims\nfor breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, negli-\n\fNo. 17-3474 5\n\ngence, and product liability. Waiver doctrine precludes our\nconsideration of some of Duncan Place’s arguments. For\nwhat remains, our review of the judge’s dismissal order is de\nnovo. Catinella v. County of Cook, 881 F.3d 514, 518 (7th Cir.\n2018).\nA. Warranty and Unjust-Enrichment Claims; Waiver\n Duncan Place seeks reinstatement of the warranty and\nunjust-enrichment claims brought on behalf of the unit\nowners. Its arguments are new on appeal and thus are\nwaived.\n Taking the warranty claim first, as we’ve just explained,\nthe judge ultimately dismissed this claim because Duncan\nPlace could not allege in good faith that any of the unit\nowners were aware of Danze’s warranty at the time of\npurchase. On appeal Duncan Place argues that Washington\nlaw requires that element if the claim is based on representa-\ntions contained in advertisements but not if the claim is\nbased on a standard written warranty like Danze’s lifetime\nlimited warranty.\n We don’t need to decide if that is an accurate statement of\nWashington law. Duncan Place never raised this specific\nlegal argument in the district court. Normally “a party\nwaives the ability to make a specific argument for the first\ntime on appeal when the party failed to present that specific\nargument to the district court, even though the issue may\nhave been before the district court in more general terms.”\nHomoky v. Ogden, 816 F.3d 448, 455 (7th Cir. 2016) (quoting\nHannemann v. Door Cty. Sch. Dist., 673 F.3d 746, 754 (7th Cir.\n2012)). There is an exception, however. If the district court\nraises an issue sua sponte and the appellate brief is the first\n\f6 No. 17-3474\n\nopportunity to discuss it, the waiver rule does not preclude\nreview. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Ltd. v. Cent. Nat’l Ins. Co. of Omaha,\n936 F.2d 319, 323 n.7 (7th Cir. 1991).\n The exception to the waiver rule doesn’t open the door\nfor review of this argument. It’s true that the judge sua\nsponte raised the issue about the unit holder’s knowledge of\nthe warranty. Ruling on the second motion to dismiss, he\ninformed the parties that under Washington law the unit\nowners could prevail on the warranty claim only if they\nknew of Danze’s warranty at the time of purchase. The\namended complaint was silent on this subject, so the judge\ngave Duncan Place an opportunity to file a position state-\nment clarifying the matter. He also warned that the warranty\nclaim would be dismissed if Duncan Place’s follow-up\nsubmission revealed that the unit owners did not know\nabout the warranty at the time of purchase.\n In the months that followed, Duncan Place filed three po-\nsition statements on this subject. In the first and second, it\nreported that it had been unable to confirm whether 39 of\nthe 41 unit owners were aware of Danze’s warranty. Two\nowners initially said they were aware of it but later recanted.\nIn neither position statement did Duncan Place advance an\nargument that the knowledge requirement did not apply at\nall.\n After the second position statement but before the third,\nthe judge held a hearing at which Danze announced its\nintention to renew its motion to dismiss based on Duncan\nPlace’s inability to allege that the unit owners were aware of\nthe warranty. Duncan Place did not take this opportunity to\nargue that Washington law distinguishes between represen-\n\fNo. 17-3474 7\n\ntations made in advertisements and representations made in\na standard written warranty like the one at issue here.\n Soon after this hearing, Duncan Place filed its third and\nfinal position statement. Like the first two, this one did not\nso much as hint that the knowledge requirement was inap-\nplicable because the claim alleged breach of a standard\nwritten warranty. Rather, Duncan Place asked for more time\nto investigate the extent of the unit owners’ knowledge. At\nyet another hearing a few weeks later, the parties again\ndiscussed the knowledge issue. As before, Duncan Place\nnever suggested that knowledge of the warranty was not\nrequired.\n In short, Duncan Place had multiple opportunities to ad-\nvance the argument it now raises on appeal. At every turn, it\nfailed to do so. That’s a waiver. And because Duncan Place\nmakes no other argument to support reinstatement of the\nwarranty claim on behalf of the unit owners, we affirm the\ndismissal of that claim.\n Next up is the claim for unjust-enrichment. The judge\nruled that the unjust-enrichment claim is premised on fraud\nand thus the amended complaint had to satisfy the height-\nened pleading requirements of Rule 9(b). Because it did not,\nthe judge dismissed the claim.\n Duncan Place concedes on appeal that its fraud allega-\ntions are inadequate under Rule 9(b). It argues instead that\nthe judge should have excised the fraud allegations and\nevaluated whether the remaining nonfraud allegations\nstated a claim for unjust enrichment under Rule 8(a).\n It is not clear to us that there is anything left of the\nunjust-enrichment claim if the fraud allegations are disre-\n\f8 No. 17-3474\n\ngarded. But we don’t need to sort that out. This argument\ntoo is waived because Duncan Place never raised it in the\ndistrict court.\n Duncan Place insists that it preserved the argument by\ncontending below that Rule 9(b) does not apply at all. But\nthat general contention is insufficient to preserve the specific\nargument Duncan Place advances here. See Homoky, 816 F.3d\nat 455. Duncan Place points out that its response to Danze’s\nsecond motion to dismiss cited Goodman v. HTC America, Inc.,\nNo. C11-1793MJP, 2012 WL 2412070, at *9 (W.D. Wash.\nJune 26, 2012), which discusses the two-step approach that it\nargues should have been applied here. Goodman indeed\naddresses that subject, but Duncan Place never drew the\njudge’s attention to the relevant part of the case. Instead, it\nrelied on Goodman for a different purpose. Because Duncan\nPlace raises no other argument to support reinstatement of\nthe unjust-enrichment claim, we affirm the dismissal of that\nclaim.\nB. Product-Liability Claim\n The judge dismissed Duncan Place’s claims for negli-\ngence and strict product liability, reasoning that Washing-\nton’s independent-duty doctrine blocks recovery. That’s\npartially correct. In a suit for damages caused by a defective\nproduct, Washington’s independent-duty doctrine generally\nbars recovery in tort for economic losses associated with the\ninjury to the product itself, but it does not bar recovery of\ndamages for injury to other property caused by the defective\nproduct.\n At the outset we note that the Washington Product\nLiability Act “created a single cause of action for product-\n\fNo. 17-3474 9\n\nrelated harms, and supplants previously existing common\nlaw remedies, including common law actions for negli-\ngence.” Wash. State Physicians Ins. Exch. & Ass’n v. Fisons\nCorp., 858 P.2d 1054, 1066 (Wash. 1993) (en banc); see also\nWASH. REV. CODE § 7.72.010(4). We therefore construe the\nclaims styled as negligence and strict product liability as one\nWPLA claim.\n Under the WPLA, a manufacturer is liable for harm prox-\nimately caused by its defective products, WASH. REV. CODE\n§ 7.72.030(1), but not all harms are cognizable under the Act,\nid. § 7.72.010(6). Economic losses arising from defective\nproducts often trigger remedies in both contract and tort,\nand Washington’s independent-duty doctrine—formerly\nknown as the economic-loss doctrine—provides a test for\n“distinguish[ing] between claims where a plaintiff is limited\nto contract remedies and cases where recovery in tort may be\navailable.” Eastwood, 241 P.3d at 1261–62.\n In Eastwood the Washington Supreme Court renamed and\nsubstantially clarified the contours of the doctrine. The court\nbegan with the terms of the WPLA, which codified the “tort\nduty to avoid product designs and construction that are\nunreasonably dangerous.” 1 Id. at 1265; see WASH. REV. CODE\n§ 7.72.030(1)–(2). The Act’s definition of “harm” includes\n“any damages recognized by the courts of this state” but\nspecifically excludes “direct or consequential economic loss\nunder Title 62A,” the state’s version of the Uniform Com-\nmercial Code. WASH. REV. CODE § 7.72.010(6). This limiting\nlanguage “leav[es] the law of sales contracts as the sole\n\n\n1The Act also covers harm caused by inadequate product warnings, see\nWASH. REV. CODE § 7.72.030(1)(b)–(c)), but that’s not at issue here.\n\f10 No. 17-3474\n\nsource of a plaintiff’s remedy for economic loss.” Eastwood,\n241 P.3d at 1265.\n But this limitation applies to economic losses associated\nwith a breach of contractual duties. Under Washington’s\nindependent-duty doctrine, a product-related injury “is\nremediable in tort if it traces back to the breach of a tort duty\narising independently of the terms of the contract.” Id. at\n1262. To determine whether a harm can be reasonably traced\nto a tort duty independent of the contract, the Washington\nSupreme Court has adopted a “risk of harm” test that en-\ndeavors to “distinguish[] between a harm that implicates\nonly the contract and a harm that implicates the independ-\nent [tort] duty as well.” Id. at 1265. Relevant factors in the\nrisk-of-harm analysis include the nature of the product\ndefect, the type of risk at issue, and the manner in which the\ninjury arose. Id.\n Crucial for our purposes, however, Eastwood explains that\n“[w]hen a product defect results in a personal injury or\ndamage to other property, the cause can plainly be a breach of\nthe tort duty.” Id. (emphasis added). On the other hand,\n“[w]hen a product defect results in injury only to the prod-\nuct itself, … the risk of harm must be carefully analyzed.” Id.\nAccordingly, Washington law allows tort recovery for eco-\nnomic loss associated with the product’s failure—i.e., tort\nrecovery for “injury” to the product itself—only if the product\nis hazardous and poses an unreasonable risk of harm under\nthe “risk of harm” test, implicating the “safety interests of\nthe WPLA.” Id.\n So the first step in the analysis is to determine whether\nthe plaintiff seeks recovery for losses associated with dam-\nage to the product itself, on the one hand, or for personal\n\fNo. 17-3474 11\n\ninjury or damage to other property, on the other. Id. If the\ninjury falls in the first category, then the next step requires\napplication of the risk-of-harm test to determine whether the\ninjury is nonetheless cognizable in tort under the Act. Id. If it\nfalls in the second category, however, the claim is cognizable\nunder the Act without further analysis because “the cause\ncan plainly be a breach of the tort duty” independent of the\ncontract. Id.\n Here the judge acknowledged that the claim seeks recov-\nery for damage to other property—i.e., other parts of the\ncondominium building—caused by the defective faucets. But\nhe went on to conduct a risk-of-harm analysis as if Duncan\nPlace sought to recover for faucet-related injuries alone. That\nwas error. The amended complaint alleges that Danze’s\ndefective faucets caused “extensive damage” to the condo-\nminium building. To that extent, the WPLA claim should\nhave been allowed to move forward.\n There is an important limitation, however. As we’ve ex-\nplained, Duncan Place obtained assignments from 41 unit\nowners, and everyone agrees that it may assert the rights of\nthose unit owners. On remand the WPLA claim may proceed\nto the extent that it alleges that Danze’s defective faucets\ncaused damage to other property in those 41 units. As it\nstands, the amended complaint contains specific allegations\nonly with respect to two unit owners; the allegations about\n“extensive damage” to the condominium building are\notherwise quite general. These generalized allegations\nsupport an inference that the defective faucets caused dam-\nage to common condominium property as well, and we take\nthis to mean that the homeowners’ association also asserts\n\f12 No. 17-3474\n\nthis claim on its own behalf. To that additional extent, the\nclaim may proceed to factual development.\n Finally, Duncan Place insists that it may also assert the\nrights of the unit owners from whom it did not obtain\nassignments. This argument verges on frivolous. “[W]hether\nan association has standing to invoke the court’s remedial\npowers on behalf of its members depends in substantial\nmeasure on the nature of the relief sought.” Warth v. Seldin,\n422 U.S. 490, 515 (1975). “‘[I]ndividual participation’ is not\nnormally necessary when an association seeks prospective or\ninjunctive relief for its members, but … such participation\nwould be required in an action for damages to an associa-\ntion’s members … .” United Food & Commercial Workers Union\nLocal 751 v. Brown Grp., Inc., 517 U.S. 544, 546 (1996) (citing\nHunt v. Wash. State Apple Advert. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 343\n(1977)). Associational standing is inappropriate if “whatever\ninjury may have been suffered is peculiar to the individual\nmembers concerned, and both the fact and extent of injury\nwould require individualized proof.” Warth, 422 U.S. at 515–\n16; see also Sanner v. Bd. of Trade of City of Chi., 62 F.3d 918, 923\n(7th Cir. 1995) (forbidding a farming association from assert-\ning standing on behalf of its members where the suit would\n“require the calculation of damages for each of the individu-\nal farmers”).\n Duncan Place has no viable claim for prospective relief.\nWhat it casts as a plea for declaratory and injunctive relief is\ninstead a straightforward claim for damages. Duncan Place\nseeks a declaration announcing that all Danze faucets manu-\nfactured from 2000 to the present have defects of which\n\fNo. 17-3474 13\n\nDanze was well aware. 2 This request reflects a misunder-\nstanding of the purpose of declaratory judgments. A declara-\ntory judgment serves to “settle the particular controversy\nand clarify the legal relations at issue.” NUCOR Corp., v.\nAceros Y Maquilas de Occidente, S.A. de C.V., 28 F.3d 572, 579\n(7th Cir. 1994) (quoting Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Am. Mut. Liab.\nIns. Co., 372 F.2d 435, 438 (7th Cir. 1967)). A declaration that\nDanze produced defective faucets would not settle the\ncontroversy between Duncan Place and Danze or clarify\ntheir legal relationship. It would only lay the groundwork\nfor a claim for damages.\n And associational standing cannot support a damages\nclaim on behalf of the nonassigning unit owners. There’s no\nquestion that each unit owner with a viable claim would\nhave to provide “individualized proof” of “the fact and\nextent of injury” to the condominium unit. Warth, 422 U.S. at\n515–16.\n In sum, we AFFIRM the dismissal of Duncan Place’s war-\nranty and unjust-enrichment claims, REVERSE the dismissal\nof Duncan Place’s WPLA claim, and REMAND for further\nproceedings consistent with this opinion.\n\n\n\n\n2Duncan Place also seeks declaratory and injunctive relief regarding\nDanze’s failure to honor its warranty. We’re affirming the dismissal of the\nwarranty claim, so we need say no more about associational standing to\npursue these remedies.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Duncan Place Owners Associatio v. Danze, Inc.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-06-19\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 17-3474\\nDUNCAN PLACE OWNERS ASSOCIATION,\\non its own behalf and as assignee\\nof the Association Members,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n\\n v.\\n\\nDANZE, INC., f/k/a GLOBE UNION\\nAMERICA CORPORATION, and\\nGLOBE UNION GROUP, INC.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 15 C 01662 — Edmond E. Chang, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED APRIL 4, 2018 — DECIDED JUNE 19, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and BAUER and SYKES, Circuit\\nJudges.\\n SYKES, Circuit Judge. In 2009 faucets manufactured by\\nIllinois-based Danze, Inc., were installed in all 63 units of a\\nnew condominium building in Seattle, Washington. In the\\n\\f2 No. 17-3474\\n\\nyears that followed, some of the faucets failed, causing\\ndamage to the building and replacement costs. The condo-\\nminium association, Duncan Place Owners Association, filed\\na proposed class-action suit against Danze raising multiple\\nclaims for relief, including breach of express warranty, unjust\\nenrichment, negligence, and strict product liability. The\\ndistrict judge dismissed all but one of the claims and later\\nentered summary judgment on the sole remaining claim.\\n Duncan Place appeals, seeking reinstatement of the\\nclaims that were dismissed on the pleadings. We affirm, with\\none narrow exception. The Washington Product Liability Act\\n(“WPLA” or “the Act”) subsumes all common-law product-\\nliability claims, so we construe Duncan Place’s negligence\\nand strict-liability claims as one cause of action under the\\nAct. In a suit for damages caused by a defective product,\\nWashington’s “independent duty doctrine” (formerly known\\nas the “economic loss doctrine”) generally bars recovery in\\ntort for direct and consequential economic losses stemming\\nfrom the product’s failure—that is, damages associated with\\nthe “injury” to the product itself. But the doctrine does not\\nbar recovery for damage to other property caused by the\\ndefective product. See Eastwood v. Horse Harbor Found., Inc.,\\n241 P.3d 1256, 1265 (Wash. 2010) (en banc). Duncan Place\\nalleges in general terms that the defective faucets caused\\ndamage to other condominium property. To that limited\\nextent, the WPLA claim is not blocked by the independent-\\nduty doctrine and should have been allowed to proceed.\\n Duncan Place’s arguments for reinstatement of its war-\\nranty and unjust-enrichment claims are new on appeal.\\nArguments not raised in the district court are waived, so we\\n\\fNo. 17-3474 3\\n\\naffirm the dismissal of the warranty and unjust-enrichment\\nclaims.\\n I. Background\\n We take the following factual allegations from Duncan\\nPlace’s second amended complaint, accepting them as true\\nfor present purposes. When the Duncan Place condominium\\ncomplex was built in 2009, the developers installed Danze\\nfaucets in the bathrooms of each of the 63 units. The water\\nhoses in Danze’s faucets are made from an inferior low\\nnickel stainless-steel alloy that makes them vulnerable to\\ncorrosion and cracking when put to normal use. As a result\\nseveral of the faucets failed causing “extensive property\\ndamage” and replacement costs.\\n Danze’s “limited lifetime warranty” guarantees the quali-\\nty of its faucets and promises to replace any parts that prove\\ndefective. Nonetheless, Danze refused to repair or replace\\nthe faucets.\\n The Duncan Place Owners Association filed this lawsuit\\nin federal court in the Northern District of Illinois on behalf\\nof itself, the condominium’s 63 unit owners, and a proposed\\nnationwide class of original consumer end-users of Danze\\nfaucets with a steel-braided supply hose. The suit asserted\\nclaims under Washington law, including breach of express\\nwarranty, unjust enrichment, negligence, and strict product\\nliability, as well as other state-law claims that have since\\ndropped out of the case.\\n Danze moved to dismiss on the ground that Duncan\\nPlace lacked associational standing to assert the rights of the\\nunit owners. The judge agreed and dismissed the claims\\nbrought on their behalf. Duncan Place then amended its\\n\\f4 No. 17-3474\\n\\ncomplaint to reflect that it had obtained assignments from 41\\nof the 63 unit owners, eliminating the need for associational\\nstanding to support its assertion of their rights.\\n Danze again moved to dismiss. The judge granted the\\nmotion for the most part. He held that Washington’s\\nindependent-duty doctrine barred the claims of negligence\\nand strict product liability and dismissed them. The judge\\nalso dismissed the unjust-enrichment claim because it was\\npremised on fraud but did not satisfy the heightened plead-\\ning requirements of Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil\\nProcedure.\\n In the same order, the judge explained that to prevail on\\na claim for breach of an express warranty under Washington\\nlaw, a plaintiff must show that he was aware of the warranty.\\nAllegations of that sort did not appear in the amended\\ncomplaint, so the judge gave Duncan Place an opportunity\\nto investigate whether it had a good-faith basis to allege that\\nany of the 41 unit owners knew of the warranty. After sever-\\nal months of investigation, Duncan Place was unable to\\nmake those allegations in good faith with respect to any of\\nthe unit owners. The judge dismissed the express-warranty\\nclaim brought on the unit owners’ behalf.\\n That left only Duncan Place’s own claim for breach of ex-\\npress warranty. The judge eventually entered summary\\njudgment for Danze on that claim, setting up this appeal.\\n II. Discussion\\n Duncan Place does not challenge the judge’s summary-\\njudgment ruling. This appeal focuses instead on the claims\\nthat were dismissed on the pleadings—namely, the claims\\nfor breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, negli-\\n\\fNo. 17-3474 5\\n\\ngence, and product liability. Waiver doctrine precludes our\\nconsideration of some of Duncan Place’s arguments. For\\nwhat remains, our review of the judge’s dismissal order is de\\nnovo. Catinella v. County of Cook, 881 F.3d 514, 518 (7th Cir.\\n2018).\\nA. Warranty and Unjust-Enrichment Claims; Waiver\\n Duncan Place seeks reinstatement of the warranty and\\nunjust-enrichment claims brought on behalf of the unit\\nowners. Its arguments are new on appeal and thus are\\nwaived.\\n Taking the warranty claim first, as we’ve just explained,\\nthe judge ultimately dismissed this claim because Duncan\\nPlace could not allege in good faith that any of the unit\\nowners were aware of Danze’s warranty at the time of\\npurchase. On appeal Duncan Place argues that Washington\\nlaw requires that element if the claim is based on representa-\\ntions contained in advertisements but not if the claim is\\nbased on a standard written warranty like Danze’s lifetime\\nlimited warranty.\\n We don’t need to decide if that is an accurate statement of\\nWashington law. Duncan Place never raised this specific\\nlegal argument in the district court. Normally “a party\\nwaives the ability to make a specific argument for the first\\ntime on appeal when the party failed to present that specific\\nargument to the district court, even though the issue may\\nhave been before the district court in more general terms.”\\nHomoky v. Ogden, 816 F.3d 448, 455 (7th Cir. 2016) (quoting\\nHannemann v. Door Cty. Sch. Dist., 673 F.3d 746, 754 (7th Cir.\\n2012)). There is an exception, however. If the district court\\nraises an issue sua sponte and the appellate brief is the first\\n\\f6 No. 17-3474\\n\\nopportunity to discuss it, the waiver rule does not preclude\\nreview. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Ltd. v. Cent. Nat’l Ins. Co. of Omaha,\\n936 F.2d 319, 323 n.7 (7th Cir. 1991).\\n The exception to the waiver rule doesn’t open the door\\nfor review of this argument. It’s true that the judge sua\\nsponte raised the issue about the unit holder’s knowledge of\\nthe warranty. Ruling on the second motion to dismiss, he\\ninformed the parties that under Washington law the unit\\nowners could prevail on the warranty claim only if they\\nknew of Danze’s warranty at the time of purchase. The\\namended complaint was silent on this subject, so the judge\\ngave Duncan Place an opportunity to file a position state-\\nment clarifying the matter. He also warned that the warranty\\nclaim would be dismissed if Duncan Place’s follow-up\\nsubmission revealed that the unit owners did not know\\nabout the warranty at the time of purchase.\\n In the months that followed, Duncan Place filed three po-\\nsition statements on this subject. In the first and second, it\\nreported that it had been unable to confirm whether 39 of\\nthe 41 unit owners were aware of Danze’s warranty. Two\\nowners initially said they were aware of it but later recanted.\\nIn neither position statement did Duncan Place advance an\\nargument that the knowledge requirement did not apply at\\nall.\\n After the second position statement but before the third,\\nthe judge held a hearing at which Danze announced its\\nintention to renew its motion to dismiss based on Duncan\\nPlace’s inability to allege that the unit owners were aware of\\nthe warranty. Duncan Place did not take this opportunity to\\nargue that Washington law distinguishes between represen-\\n\\fNo. 17-3474 7\\n\\ntations made in advertisements and representations made in\\na standard written warranty like the one at issue here.\\n Soon after this hearing, Duncan Place filed its third and\\nfinal position statement. Like the first two, this one did not\\nso much as hint that the knowledge requirement was inap-\\nplicable because the claim alleged breach of a standard\\nwritten warranty. Rather, Duncan Place asked for more time\\nto investigate the extent of the unit owners’ knowledge. At\\nyet another hearing a few weeks later, the parties again\\ndiscussed the knowledge issue. As before, Duncan Place\\nnever suggested that knowledge of the warranty was not\\nrequired.\\n In short, Duncan Place had multiple opportunities to ad-\\nvance the argument it now raises on appeal. At every turn, it\\nfailed to do so. That’s a waiver. And because Duncan Place\\nmakes no other argument to support reinstatement of the\\nwarranty claim on behalf of the unit owners, we affirm the\\ndismissal of that claim.\\n Next up is the claim for unjust-enrichment. The judge\\nruled that the unjust-enrichment claim is premised on fraud\\nand thus the amended complaint had to satisfy the height-\\nened pleading requirements of Rule 9(b). Because it did not,\\nthe judge dismissed the claim.\\n Duncan Place concedes on appeal that its fraud allega-\\ntions are inadequate under Rule 9(b). It argues instead that\\nthe judge should have excised the fraud allegations and\\nevaluated whether the remaining nonfraud allegations\\nstated a claim for unjust enrichment under Rule 8(a).\\n It is not clear to us that there is anything left of the\\nunjust-enrichment claim if the fraud allegations are disre-\\n\\f8 No. 17-3474\\n\\ngarded. But we don’t need to sort that out. This argument\\ntoo is waived because Duncan Place never raised it in the\\ndistrict court.\\n Duncan Place insists that it preserved the argument by\\ncontending below that Rule 9(b) does not apply at all. But\\nthat general contention is insufficient to preserve the specific\\nargument Duncan Place advances here. See Homoky, 816 F.3d\\nat 455. Duncan Place points out that its response to Danze’s\\nsecond motion to dismiss cited Goodman v. HTC America, Inc.,\\nNo. C11-1793MJP, 2012 WL 2412070, at *9 (W.D. Wash.\\nJune 26, 2012), which discusses the two-step approach that it\\nargues should have been applied here. Goodman indeed\\naddresses that subject, but Duncan Place never drew the\\njudge’s attention to the relevant part of the case. Instead, it\\nrelied on Goodman for a different purpose. Because Duncan\\nPlace raises no other argument to support reinstatement of\\nthe unjust-enrichment claim, we affirm the dismissal of that\\nclaim.\\nB. Product-Liability Claim\\n The judge dismissed Duncan Place’s claims for negli-\\ngence and strict product liability, reasoning that Washing-\\nton’s independent-duty doctrine blocks recovery. That’s\\npartially correct. In a suit for damages caused by a defective\\nproduct, Washington’s independent-duty doctrine generally\\nbars recovery in tort for economic losses associated with the\\ninjury to the product itself, but it does not bar recovery of\\ndamages for injury to other property caused by the defective\\nproduct.\\n At the outset we note that the Washington Product\\nLiability Act “created a single cause of action for product-\\n\\fNo. 17-3474 9\\n\\nrelated harms, and supplants previously existing common\\nlaw remedies, including common law actions for negli-\\ngence.” Wash. State Physicians Ins. Exch. & Ass’n v. Fisons\\nCorp., 858 P.2d 1054, 1066 (Wash. 1993) (en banc); see also\\nWASH. REV. CODE § 7.72.010(4). We therefore construe the\\nclaims styled as negligence and strict product liability as one\\nWPLA claim.\\n Under the WPLA, a manufacturer is liable for harm prox-\\nimately caused by its defective products, WASH. REV. CODE\\n§ 7.72.030(1), but not all harms are cognizable under the Act,\\nid. § 7.72.010(6). Economic losses arising from defective\\nproducts often trigger remedies in both contract and tort,\\nand Washington’s independent-duty doctrine—formerly\\nknown as the economic-loss doctrine—provides a test for\\n“distinguish[ing] between claims where a plaintiff is limited\\nto contract remedies and cases where recovery in tort may be\\navailable.” Eastwood, 241 P.3d at 1261–62.\\n In Eastwood the Washington Supreme Court renamed and\\nsubstantially clarified the contours of the doctrine. The court\\nbegan with the terms of the WPLA, which codified the “tort\\nduty to avoid product designs and construction that are\\nunreasonably dangerous.” 1 Id. at 1265; see WASH. REV. CODE\\n§ 7.72.030(1)–(2). The Act’s definition of “harm” includes\\n“any damages recognized by the courts of this state” but\\nspecifically excludes “direct or consequential economic loss\\nunder Title 62A,” the state’s version of the Uniform Com-\\nmercial Code. WASH. REV. CODE § 7.72.010(6). This limiting\\nlanguage “leav[es] the law of sales contracts as the sole\\n\\n\\n1The Act also covers harm caused by inadequate product warnings, see\\nWASH. REV. CODE § 7.72.030(1)(b)–(c)), but that’s not at issue here.\\n\\f10 No. 17-3474\\n\\nsource of a plaintiff’s remedy for economic loss.” Eastwood,\\n241 P.3d at 1265.\\n But this limitation applies to economic losses associated\\nwith a breach of contractual duties. Under Washington’s\\nindependent-duty doctrine, a product-related injury “is\\nremediable in tort if it traces back to the breach of a tort duty\\narising independently of the terms of the contract.” Id. at\\n1262. To determine whether a harm can be reasonably traced\\nto a tort duty independent of the contract, the Washington\\nSupreme Court has adopted a “risk of harm” test that en-\\ndeavors to “distinguish[] between a harm that implicates\\nonly the contract and a harm that implicates the independ-\\nent [tort] duty as well.” Id. at 1265. Relevant factors in the\\nrisk-of-harm analysis include the nature of the product\\ndefect, the type of risk at issue, and the manner in which the\\ninjury arose. Id.\\n Crucial for our purposes, however, Eastwood explains that\\n“[w]hen a product defect results in a personal injury or\\ndamage to other property, the cause can plainly be a breach of\\nthe tort duty.” Id. (emphasis added). On the other hand,\\n“[w]hen a product defect results in injury only to the prod-\\nuct itself, … the risk of harm must be carefully analyzed.” Id.\\nAccordingly, Washington law allows tort recovery for eco-\\nnomic loss associated with the product’s failure—i.e., tort\\nrecovery for “injury” to the product itself—only if the product\\nis hazardous and poses an unreasonable risk of harm under\\nthe “risk of harm” test, implicating the “safety interests of\\nthe WPLA.” Id.\\n So the first step in the analysis is to determine whether\\nthe plaintiff seeks recovery for losses associated with dam-\\nage to the product itself, on the one hand, or for personal\\n\\fNo. 17-3474 11\\n\\ninjury or damage to other property, on the other. Id. If the\\ninjury falls in the first category, then the next step requires\\napplication of the risk-of-harm test to determine whether the\\ninjury is nonetheless cognizable in tort under the Act. Id. If it\\nfalls in the second category, however, the claim is cognizable\\nunder the Act without further analysis because “the cause\\ncan plainly be a breach of the tort duty” independent of the\\ncontract. Id.\\n Here the judge acknowledged that the claim seeks recov-\\nery for damage to other property—i.e., other parts of the\\ncondominium building—caused by the defective faucets. But\\nhe went on to conduct a risk-of-harm analysis as if Duncan\\nPlace sought to recover for faucet-related injuries alone. That\\nwas error. The amended complaint alleges that Danze’s\\ndefective faucets caused “extensive damage” to the condo-\\nminium building. To that extent, the WPLA claim should\\nhave been allowed to move forward.\\n There is an important limitation, however. As we’ve ex-\\nplained, Duncan Place obtained assignments from 41 unit\\nowners, and everyone agrees that it may assert the rights of\\nthose unit owners. On remand the WPLA claim may proceed\\nto the extent that it alleges that Danze’s defective faucets\\ncaused damage to other property in those 41 units. As it\\nstands, the amended complaint contains specific allegations\\nonly with respect to two unit owners; the allegations about\\n“extensive damage” to the condominium building are\\notherwise quite general. These generalized allegations\\nsupport an inference that the defective faucets caused dam-\\nage to common condominium property as well, and we take\\nthis to mean that the homeowners’ association also asserts\\n\\f12 No. 17-3474\\n\\nthis claim on its own behalf. To that additional extent, the\\nclaim may proceed to factual development.\\n Finally, Duncan Place insists that it may also assert the\\nrights of the unit owners from whom it did not obtain\\nassignments. This argument verges on frivolous. “[W]hether\\nan association has standing to invoke the court’s remedial\\npowers on behalf of its members depends in substantial\\nmeasure on the nature of the relief sought.” Warth v. Seldin,\\n422 U.S. 490, 515 (1975). “‘[I]ndividual participation’ is not\\nnormally necessary when an association seeks prospective or\\ninjunctive relief for its members, but … such participation\\nwould be required in an action for damages to an associa-\\ntion’s members … .” United Food & Commercial Workers Union\\nLocal 751 v. Brown Grp., Inc., 517 U.S. 544, 546 (1996) (citing\\nHunt v. Wash. State Apple Advert. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 343\\n(1977)). Associational standing is inappropriate if “whatever\\ninjury may have been suffered is peculiar to the individual\\nmembers concerned, and both the fact and extent of injury\\nwould require individualized proof.” Warth, 422 U.S. at 515–\\n16; see also Sanner v. Bd. of Trade of City of Chi., 62 F.3d 918, 923\\n(7th Cir. 1995) (forbidding a farming association from assert-\\ning standing on behalf of its members where the suit would\\n“require the calculation of damages for each of the individu-\\nal farmers”).\\n Duncan Place has no viable claim for prospective relief.\\nWhat it casts as a plea for declaratory and injunctive relief is\\ninstead a straightforward claim for damages. Duncan Place\\nseeks a declaration announcing that all Danze faucets manu-\\nfactured from 2000 to the present have defects of which\\n\\fNo. 17-3474 13\\n\\nDanze was well aware. 2 This request reflects a misunder-\\nstanding of the purpose of declaratory judgments. A declara-\\ntory judgment serves to “settle the particular controversy\\nand clarify the legal relations at issue.” NUCOR Corp., v.\\nAceros Y Maquilas de Occidente, S.A. de C.V., 28 F.3d 572, 579\\n(7th Cir. 1994) (quoting Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Am. Mut. Liab.\\nIns. Co., 372 F.2d 435, 438 (7th Cir. 1967)). A declaration that\\nDanze produced defective faucets would not settle the\\ncontroversy between Duncan Place and Danze or clarify\\ntheir legal relationship. It would only lay the groundwork\\nfor a claim for damages.\\n And associational standing cannot support a damages\\nclaim on behalf of the nonassigning unit owners. There’s no\\nquestion that each unit owner with a viable claim would\\nhave to provide “individualized proof” of “the fact and\\nextent of injury” to the condominium unit. Warth, 422 U.S. at\\n515–16.\\n In sum, we AFFIRM the dismissal of Duncan Place’s war-\\nranty and unjust-enrichment claims, REVERSE the dismissal\\nof Duncan Place’s WPLA claim, and REMAND for further\\nproceedings consistent with this opinion.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n2Duncan Place also seeks declaratory and injunctive relief regarding\\nDanze’s failure to honor its warranty. We’re affirming the dismissal of the\\nwarranty claim, so we need say no more about associational standing to\\npursue these remedies.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":2599,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4631324,"string":"4,631,324"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"In RE: Robbin L. FULTON, Debtor-Appellee. Appeal Of: City of Chicago in Re: Jason S. Howard, Debtor-Appellee. Appeal Of: City of Chicago in Re: George Peake, Debtor-Appellee. Appeal Of: City of Chicago in Re: Timothy Shannon, Debtor-Appellee. Appeal Of: City of Chicago"},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"City of Chicago v. Timothy Shannon"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-06-19"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-2527; 18-2793; 18-2835; 18-3023"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Flaum, Kanne, Scudder\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Joel Martin Flaum\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nNo. 18‐2527\\nIN RE: ROBBIN L. FULTON,\\n Debtor‐Appellee.\\nAPPEAL OF: CITY OF CHICAGO\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court\\n for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division‐BK.\\n No. 18‐02860 — Jack B. Schmetterer, Bankruptcy Judge.\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18‐2793\\nIN RE: JASON S. HOWARD,\\n Debtor‐Appellee.\\nAPPEAL OF: CITY OF CHICAGO\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court\\n for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division‐BK.\\n No. 17‐25141 — Jacqueline P. Cox, Bankruptcy Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\f2 Nos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023\\n\\nNo. 18‐2835\\nIN RE: GEORGE PEAKE,\\n Debtor‐Appellee.\\nAPPEAL OF: CITY OF CHICAGO\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court\\n for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division‐BK.\\n No. 18‐16544 — Deborah Lee Thorne, Bankruptcy Judge.\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18‐3023\\nIN RE: TIMOTHY SHANNON,\\n Debtor‐Appellee.\\nAPPEAL OF: CITY OF CHICAGO\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court\\n for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division‐BK.\\n No. 18‐04116 — Carol A. Doyle, Chief Bankruptcy Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED MAY 14, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 19, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before FLAUM, KANNE, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\\n FLAUM, Circuit Judge. In this consolidated appeal of four\\nChapter 13 bankruptcies, we consider whether the City of\\nChicago may ignore the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay\\nand continue to hold a debtor’s vehicle until the debtor pays\\nher outstanding parking tickets. Prior to the debtors’ filing for\\nbankruptcy, the City impounded each of their vehicles for\\n\\fNos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023 3\\n\\nfailure to pay multiple traffic fines. After the debtors filed\\ntheir Chapter 13 petitions, the City refused to return their ve‐\\nhicles, claiming it needed to maintain possession to continue\\nperfection of its possessory liens on the vehicles and that it\\nwould only return the vehicles when the debtors paid in full\\ntheir outstanding fines. The bankruptcy courts each held that\\nthe City violated the automatic stay by “exercising control”\\nover property of the bankruptcy estate and that none of the\\nexceptions to the stay applied. The courts ordered the City to\\nreturn debtors’ vehicles and imposed sanctions on the City for\\nviolating the stay.\\n This is not our first time addressing this issue: in Thompson\\nv. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 566 F.3d 699 (7th Cir. 2009),\\nwe held that a creditor must comply with the automatic stay\\nand return a debtor’s vehicle upon her filing of a bankruptcy\\npetition. We decline the City’s request to overrule Thompson.\\nWe therefore affirm the bankruptcy courts’ judgments relying\\non Thompson, and we also agree with the bankruptcy courts\\nthat none of the exceptions to the stay apply.\\n I. Background\\n The Chicago Municipal Code permits creditor‐appellant\\nthe City of Chicago to immobilize and then impound a vehicle\\nif its owner has three or more “final determinations of liabil‐\\nity,” or two final determinations that are over a year old, “for\\nparking, standing, compliance, automated traffic law enforce‐\\nment system, or automated speed enforcement system viola‐\\ntion[s].” Municipal Code of Chicago (“M.C.C.”) § 9‐100‐\\n120(b); see also id. § 9‐80‐240(a) (providing for impoundment\\nof vehicles “operated by a person with a suspended or re‐\\nvoked driver’s license”). The fines for violations of the City’s\\nTraffic Code range from $25 (e.g., parallel parking violation)\\n\\f4 Nos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023\\n\\nto $500 (e.g., parking on a public street without displaying a\\nwheel tax license emblem). Id. § 9‐100‐020(b)–(c). Failure to\\npay the fine within twenty‐five days automatically doubles\\nthe penalty. Id. § 9‐100‐050(e). After a vehicle is impounded,\\nthe owner is further subjected to towing and storage fees, see\\nid. § 9‐64‐250(c), and to the City’s costs and attorney’s fees for\\ncollection activity. Id. §§ 1‐19‐020, 2‐14‐132(c)(1)(A). To re‐\\ntrieve her vehicle, an owner may either pay the fines, towing\\nand storage fees, and collection costs and fees in full, id. § 2‐\\n14‐132(c)(1)(A), or pay the full amount via an installment plan\\nover a period of up to thirty‐six months, provided she makes\\nan initial payment of half the fines and penalties plus all of\\nthe impoundment, towing, and storage charges. Id. § 9‐100‐\\n101(a)(2)–(3).\\n In 2016, the City amended the Code to include: “Any ve‐\\nhicle impounded by the City or its designee shall be subject to\\na possessory lien in favor of the City in the amount required\\nto obtain release of the vehicle.” Id. § 9‐92‐080(f). Based on this\\nprovision, the City began refusing to release impounded ve‐\\nhicles to debtors who had filed Chapter 13 petitions. That is\\njust what occurred in these four cases.\\n A. In re Fulton\\n Debtor‐appellee Robbin Fulton uses a vehicle to commute\\nto work, transport her young daughter to day care, and care\\nfor her elderly parents on weekends. On December 24, 2017,\\nthree weeks after she purchased a 2015 Kia Soul, the City\\ntowed and impounded the vehicle for a prior citation of driv‐\\ning on a suspended license. Fulton filed a Chapter 13 bank‐\\nruptcy petition on January 31, 2018 and filed a plan on Febru‐\\nary 5, treating the City as a general unsecured creditor. The\\nCity filed a general unsecured proof of claim on February 23\\n\\fNos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023 5\\n\\nfor $9,391.20. After the court confirmed Fulton’s plan on\\nMarch 21, she requested the City turn over her vehicle. The\\nCity then amended its proof of claim to add impound fees, for\\na total of $11,831.20, and to assert its status as a secured cred‐\\nitor; it did not return Fulton’s vehicle.\\n On May 2, Fulton filed a motion for sanctions arguing the\\nCity was required to turn over her vehicle pursuant to Thomp‐\\nson and that its failure to do so was sanctionable conduct. The\\nCity countered that Fulton must seek turnover through an ad‐\\nversary proceeding. It asserted it was retaining possession to\\nperfect its possessory lien and was thus excepted from the au‐\\ntomatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(3).\\n On May 25, the bankruptcy court held that the City was\\nrequired to return Fulton’s vehicle under Thompson and that\\nthe City was not excepted from the stay under § 362(b)(3). The\\ncourt ordered the City to turn over Fulton’s vehicle no later\\nthan May 29, imposed a sanction of $100 for every day the\\nCity failed to comply, and sustained Fulton’s objection to the\\nCity’s claim as a secured creditor. The City moved to stay the\\norder in the district court pending appeal; the district court\\ndenied the stay request on September 10. Eventually, the City\\nreturned Fulton’s vehicle. At no point did the City initiate\\nproceedings to protect its rights under § 363(e).\\n B. In re Shannon\\n The City impounded debtor‐appellee Timothy Shannon’s\\n1997 Buick Park Avenue on January 8, 2018 for unpaid park‐\\ning tickets. Shannon filed a Chapter 13 petition on February\\n15. On February 27, the City filed an unsecured proof of claim\\nfor $3,160 in fines dating back to 1999. Shannon, in turn, filed\\na proposed plan that did not include the City as a secured\\n\\f6 Nos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023\\n\\ncreditor, to which the City did not object, and the court con‐\\nfirmed the plan on May 1. When Shannon sought the return\\nof his vehicle, the City amended its proof of claim, adding\\nfines, storage, and towing fees for a total of $5,600, and stated\\nthe claim was secured by its possession of Shannon’s vehicle.\\n Shannon filed a motion for sanctions on June 12, asserting\\nthe stay required the City to turn over his vehicle. The court\\ngranted his motion on September 7; it held the City’s claim\\nwas unsecured because it did not object to the plan that char‐\\nacterized the debt as such. It also determined the City violated\\nthe stay by failing to return Shannon’s vehicle, that the\\n§§ 362(b)(3) and (b)(4) exceptions to the stay did not apply,\\nand that the City further violated § 362(a)(4) and (a)(6) by re‐\\ntaining the vehicle. The court noted the City was free to file a\\nmotion seeking adequate protection of its lien. The City re‐\\nturned Shannon’s car and did not file any such motion.\\n C. In re Peake\\n Debtor‐appellee George Peake relies on his car to travel\\napproximately forty‐five miles from his home to work. The\\nCity impounded his 2007 Lincoln MKZ for unpaid fines on\\nJune 1, 2018. Peake filed a Chapter 13 petition on June 9. In\\nresponse, the City filed a secured proof of claim for $5,393.27\\nand asserted a possessory lien on his vehicle. After the City\\nrefused Peake’s request to return his vehicle, he filed a motion\\nfor sanctions and for turnover. On August 15, the bankruptcy\\ncourt granted the motion; it held that neither § 362(b)(3) nor\\n(b)(4) applied, so the City’s retention of Peake’s vehicle vio‐\\nlated the stay, and it ordered the City to release his vehicle\\nimmediately. The City filed a motion to stay the order pend‐\\ning appeal, which the court denied on August 22. The same\\nday, Peake filed a motion for civil contempt based on the\\n\\fNos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023 7\\n\\nCity’s refusal to release his vehicle. The court granted the mo‐\\ntion and entered an order requiring the City to pay monetary\\nsanctions—$100 per day from August 17 through August 22\\nand $500 per day thereafter until the City returned his vehicle.\\nThe City filed an emergency motion for a stay pending appeal\\nin our Court, which we denied. Finally, the City released\\nPeake’s vehicle. At no point did the City file a motion to pro‐\\ntect its interest in the vehicle.\\n D. In re Howard\\n The City immobilized debtor‐appellee Jason Howard’s ve‐\\nhicle on August 9, 2017 and impounded it soon after. Howard\\nfiled a Chapter 13 petition on August 22. The City filed a se‐\\ncured proof of claim on August 23 for $17,110.80. The court\\nconfirmed Howard’s plan on October 16, which included a\\nnonpriority unsecured debt of $13,000 owed to the City for\\nparking tickets. Though the Code did not impose an auto‐\\nmatic stay when Howard filed his petition due to his prior\\ndismissed bankruptcy petitions, see 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(4)(A),\\nthe court granted Howard’s motion to impose a stay when it\\nconfirmed his plan on October 16. The City did not object to\\nits treatment as unsecured under the plan and did not appeal\\nthe confirmation order; rather, it simply refused to release\\nHoward’s vehicle unless he paid 100% of its claim.\\n On January 22, 2018, the court issued a rule to show cause\\nto the City why it should not be sanctioned for refusing to re‐\\nlease Howard’s vehicle in accordance with Thompson. The\\ncourt rejected the City’s argument that it was excepted from\\nthe stay under § 362(b)(3) and, on April 16, 2018, ordered\\nsanctions of $50 per day beginning August 22, 2017 for the\\nCity’s violation of the stay.\\n\\f8 Nos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023\\n\\n After the City filed its opening appellate brief, Howard\\nfiled notice of his intention not to participate in the appeal.\\nHis counsel explained Howard’s bankruptcy case had been\\ndismissed and the City disposed of his vehicle. He has since\\nfiled a new bankruptcy case to address his parking tickets but\\nhas abandoned interest in the vehicle that was the subject of\\nthe relevant Chapter 13 petition in the bankruptcy court be‐\\nlow. However, “issues related to an alleged violation of the\\nautomatic stay” are not mooted by dismissal of a bankruptcy\\npetition, Denby‐Peterson v. Nu2u Auto World, 595 B.R. 184, 188\\n(D.N.J. 2018); a court “must have the power to compensate\\nvictims of violations of the automatic stay and punish the vi‐\\nolators, even after the conclusion of the underlying bank‐\\nruptcy case.” In re Johnson, 575 F.3d 1079, 1083 (10th Cir. 2009)\\n(citing In re Davis, 177 B.R. 907, 911–12 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1995)).\\n * * *\\n In each of these four cases, the City appealed the bank‐\\nruptcy courts’ orders finding the City violated the stay. These\\ncases have been consolidated for appeal.\\n II. Discussion\\n The main question before us is whether the City is obli‐\\ngated to return a debtor’s vehicle upon her filing of a Chapter\\n13 bankruptcy petition, or whether the City is entitled to hold\\nthe debtor’s vehicle until she pays the fines and costs or until\\nshe obtains a court order requiring the City to turn over the\\nvehicle. We review a bankruptcy court’s factual findings for\\nclear error and conclusions of law de novo. In re Jepson, 816\\nF.3d 942, 945 (7th Cir. 2016).\\n\\fNos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023 9\\n\\n A. The Automatic Stay\\n Section 362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that a\\nChapter 13 bankruptcy petition “operates as a stay, applicable\\nto all entities, of … any act to obtain possession of property of\\nthe estate or of property from the estate or to exercise control\\nover property of the estate.” 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3) (emphasis\\nadded). We applied this provision to a very similar factual sit‐\\nuation in Thompson v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. There, a\\ncreditor seized a debtor’s car after he defaulted on payments.\\n566 F.3d at 700. The debtor filed a Chapter 13 petition and at‐\\ntempted to retrieve his car, but the creditor refused. Id. We\\nconsidered two issues relating to § 362(a)(3): whether the\\ncreditor “exercised control” of property of the bankruptcy es‐\\ntate by failing to return the vehicle after the debtor filed for\\nbankruptcy, and whether the creditor was required to return\\nthe vehicle prior to a court determination establishing the\\ndebtor could provide adequate protection for the creditor’s\\ninterest in the vehicle. Id. at 701.\\n 1. “Exercise Control”\\n First, we observed in Thompson there was no debate the\\ndebtor has an equitable interest in his vehicle, and “as such, it\\nis property of his bankruptcy estate.” 566 F.3d at 701 (citing\\nUnited States v. Whiting Pools, Inc., 462 U.S. 198, 203 (1983)); see\\n5 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 541.01 (16th ed. 2019) (“Congress’s\\nintent to define property of the estate in the broadest possible\\nsense is evident from the language of the statute which, in sec‐\\ntion 541(a)(1), initially defines the scope of estate property to\\nbe all legal or equitable interests of the debtor in property as\\nof the commencement of the case, wherever located and by\\nwhomever held.”). We then rejected the creditor’s argument\\n\\f10 Nos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023\\n\\nthat passively holding the asset did not satisfy the Code’s def‐\\ninition of exercising control: “Holding onto an asset, refusing\\nto return it, and otherwise prohibiting a debtor’s beneficial\\nuse of an asset all fit within th[e] definition, as well as within\\nthe commonsense meaning of the word.” Thompson, 566 F.3d\\nat 702. As we explained, limiting the reach of “exercising con‐\\ntrol” to “selling or otherwise destroying the asset,” as the\\ncreditor proposed, did not fit with bankruptcy’s purpose:\\n“The primary goal of reorganization bankruptcy is to group\\nall of the debtor’s property together in his estate such that he\\nmay rehabilitate his credit and pay off his debts; this neces‐\\nsarily extends to all property, even property lawfully seized\\npre‐petition.” Id. (citing Whiting Pools, 462 U.S. at 203–04).\\n Additionally, Congress amended § 362(a)(3) in 1984 to\\nprohibit conduct that “exercise[d] control” over estate assets.\\nWe determined this addition suggested congressional intent\\nto make the stay more inclusive by including conduct of\\n“creditors who seized an asset pre‐petition.” Id.; see In re\\nJavens, 107 F.3d 359, 368 (6th Cir. 1997) (“The fact that ‘to ob‐\\ntain possession’ was amended to ‘to obtain possession … or\\nto exercise control’ hints [] that this kind of ‘control’ might be\\na broadening of the concept of possession … It could also\\nhave been intended to make clear that [§ 362](a)(3) applied to\\nproperty of the estate that was not in the possession of the\\ndebtor.” (first alteration in original)); In re Del Mission Ltd., 98\\nF.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir. 1996) (The 1984 amendment\\n“broaden[ed] the scope of § 362(a)(3) to proscribe the mere\\nknowing retention of estate property.”). We therefore held\\nthat in retaining possession of the car, the creditor violated the\\nautomatic stay in § 362(a)(3). Thompson, 566 F.3d at 703.\\n\\fNos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023 11\\n\\n 2. Compulsory Turnover\\n Next, we concluded § 362(a)(3) becomes effective immedi‐\\nately upon filing the petition and is not dependent on the\\ndebtor first bringing a turnover action. Id. at 707–08. In so con‐\\ncluding, we relied on a plain reading of §§ 363(e) and 542(a)\\nand the Supreme Court’s decision in Whiting Pools.\\n Section 363(e) provides:\\n [O]n request of an entity that has an interest in\\n property used, sold, or leased, or proposed to be\\n used, sold, or leased … by the trustee, the court,\\n with or without a hearing, shall prohibit or con‐\\n dition such use, sale, or lease as is necessary to\\n provide adequate protection of such interest.\\n11 U.S.C. § 363(e). The creditor acknowledged, and we\\nagreed, that it has the burden of requesting protection of its\\ninterest in the asset under § 363(e). “However, if a creditor is\\nallowed to retain possession, then this burden is rendered\\nmeaningless—a creditor has no incentive to seek protection of\\nan asset of which it already has possession.” Thompson, 566\\nF.3d at 704. For § 363(e) to have meaning then, the asset must\\nbe returned to the estate prior to the creditor seeking protec‐\\ntion of its interest. Id.; cf. In re Sharon, 234 B.R. 676, 684 (B.A.P.\\n6th Cir. 1999) (“[T]he Bankruptcy Code does not elevate [the\\ncreditor’s] adequate protection right above the Chapter 13\\ndebtor’s right to possession and use of a car.”).\\n Moreover, § 542(a) “indicates that turnover of a seized as‐\\nset is compulsory.” Thompson, 566 F.3d at 704. Section 542(a)\\nrequires that a creditor in possession of property of the estate\\n“shall deliver to the trustee, and account for, such property or\\n\\f12 Nos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023\\n\\nthe value of such property, unless such property is of incon‐\\nsequential value or benefit to the estate.” 11 U.S.C. § 542(a)\\n(emphasis added). We observed that a majority of courts had\\nfound § 542(a) worked in conjunction with § 362(a) “to draw\\nback into the estate a right of possession that is claimed by a\\nlien creditor pursuant to a pre‐petition seizure; the Code then\\nsubstitutes ‘adequate protection’ for possession as one of the\\nlien creditor’s rights in the bankruptcy case.” Thompson, 566\\nF.3d at 704 (quoting Sharon, 234 B.R. at 683). Because “[t]he\\nright of possession is incident to the automatic stay,” id., the\\ncreditor must first return the asset to the bankruptcy estate.\\nOnly then is “the bankruptcy court [] empowered to condition\\nthe right of the estate to keep possession of the asset on the\\nprovision of certain specified adequate protections to the\\ncreditor.” Id.; see also 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) (“On request of a\\nparty in interest and after notice and a hearing, the court shall\\ngrant relief from the stay provided under [§ 362](a) … for\\ncause, including the lack of adequate protection of an interest\\nin property ….”). The Supreme Court indicated as much in\\nWhiting Pools when it explained that a “creditor with a se‐\\ncured interest in property included in the estate must look to\\n[§ 363(e)] for protection, rather than to the nonbankruptcy remedy\\nof possession.” 462 U.S. at 204 (emphasis added).\\n 3. Thompson Controls\\n Applying Thompson to the facts before us, we conclude, as\\neach bankruptcy court did, that the City violated the auto‐\\nmatic stay pursuant to § 362(a)(3) by retaining possession of\\nthe debtors’ vehicles after they declared bankruptcy. See In re\\nShannon, 18‐bk‐04116, Mem. Op. at 11 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Sept. 7,\\n2018), ECF No. 64 (“Thompson [] requires any secured creditor\\nin possession of a debtor’s vehicle to return it immediately\\n\\fNos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023 13\\n\\nand seek adequate protection ….”); In re Peake, 18‐bk‐16544,\\nMem. Op. at 3 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Aug. 15, 2018), ECF No. 40\\n(“[T]he City’s conduct in retaining possession of the vehicle\\nviolates [§] 362(a)(3) as that section has been interpreted … in\\nThompson ….”); In re Fulton, 18‐bk‐02860, Mem. Op. at 2\\n(Bankr. N.D. Ill. May 25, 2018), ECF No. 39 (“[T]he City is cir‐\\ncumventing entirely the procedural burden imposed on it by\\nThompson and the protections provided to debtors by the au‐\\ntomatic stay.”); In re Howard, 17‐bk‐25141, Mem. Op. at 10\\n(Bankr. N.D. Ill. Apr. 16, 2018), ECF. No. 63 (“[Section 362(a)]\\ndoes not authorize continued possession of impounded vehi‐\\ncles in contravention of the Thompson ruling.”). The City was\\nrequired to return debtors’ vehicles and seek protection\\nwithin the framework of the Bankruptcy Code rather than\\nthrough “the nonbankruptcy remedy of possession.” Whiting\\nPools, 462 U.S. at 204.\\n The City acknowledges Thompson controls but asks us to\\noverrule Thompson for three reasons: (1) property impounded\\nprior to bankruptcy is not property of the bankruptcy estate\\nbecause the debtors did not have a possessory interest in their\\nvehicles at the time of filing; (2) the stay requires creditors to\\nmaintain the status quo and not take any action, such as re‐\\nturning property to the debtor, so the onus is on the debtor to\\nmove for a turnover action to retrieve her vehicle; and (3) the\\nplain language of § 362(a)(3) requires an “act” to exercise con‐\\ntrol, and passive retention of the vehicle is not an “act.”\\n We decline the City’s request; Thompson considered and\\nrejected these arguments. More fundamentally, the City’s ar‐\\nguments ignore the purpose of bankruptcy—“to allow the\\ndebtor to regain his financial foothold and repay his credi‐\\n\\f14 Nos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023\\n\\ntors.” Thompson, 566 F.3d at 706; see also 5 Collier on Bank‐\\nruptcy ¶ 541.01 (“[The] central aggregation and protection of\\nproperty [] promote[s] the fundamental purposes of the Bank‐\\nruptcy Code: the breathing room given to a debtor that at‐\\ntempts to make a fresh start, and the equality of distribution\\nof assets among similarly situated creditors according to the\\npriorities set forth within the Code.”). To effectively do so, a\\ndebtor must be able to use his assets “while the court works\\nwith both debtor and creditors to establish a rehabilitation\\nand repayment plan.” Thompson, 566 F.3d at 707; see also Whit‐\\ning Pools, 462 U.S. at 203 (“[T]o facilitate the rehabilitation of\\nthe debtor’s business, all the debtor’s property must be in‐\\ncluded in the reorganization estate.”). This is why § 542 com‐\\npels the return of property to the estate, including “property\\nin which the debtor did not have a possessory interest at the\\ntime the bankruptcy proceedings commenced.” Whiting Pools,\\n462 U.S. at 205; see In re Weber, 719 F.3d 72, 79 (2d Cir. 2013)\\n(“Whiting Pools teaches that the filing of a petition will gener‐\\nally transform a debtor’s equitable interest into a bankruptcy\\nestate’s possessory right in the vehicle.”). Thus, contrary to\\nthe City’s argument, the status quo in bankruptcy is the return\\nof the debtor’s property to the estate. In refusing to return the\\nvehicles to their respective estates, the City was not passively\\nabiding by the bankruptcy rules but actively resisting § 542(a)\\nto exercise control over debtors’ vehicles.\\n What’s more, the position we took in Thompson brought\\nour Circuit in line with the majority rule, held by the Second,\\nEighth, and Ninth Circuits. See Weber, 719 F.3d 72; Del Mission\\n98 F.3d 1147; In re Knaus, 889 F.2d 773 (8th Cir. 1989). Alt‐\\nhough the Tenth Circuit recently adopted the City’s view, see\\nIn re Cowen, 849 F.3d 943 (10th Cir. 2017), that position is still\\n\\fNos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023 15\\n\\nthe minority rule. Our reasoning in Thompson continues to re‐\\nflect the majority position and we believe it is the appropriate\\nreading of the bankruptcy statutes. At bottom, the City wants\\nto maintain possession of the vehicles not because it wants the\\nvehicles but to put pressure on the debtors to pay their tickets.\\nThat is precisely what the stay is intended to prevent.1\\n The City, though, pleads necessity; it claims that, without\\nretaining possession, it is helpless to prevent the loss or de‐\\nstruction of the vehicles. It did not attempt in any of these\\ncases, however, to seek adequate protection of its interests\\nthrough the methods available under the Bankruptcy Code,\\nand at oral argument, the City asserted it did not have “the\\nopportunity” to request such protection before the bank‐\\nruptcy courts ordered it to return the vehicles. The record be‐\\nlies this statement. In each case, the parties engaged in motion\\npractice, often over the course of months, before the courts\\nheld the City to be in violation of the stay. At any point the\\nCity could have sought adequate protection of its interests,\\nbut it chose not to avail itself of the Code’s available proce‐\\ndures. See, e.g., 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) (court may relieve credi‐\\ntor from the stay if debtor cannot adequately protect credi‐\\ntor’s interest in the property); id. § 362(f) (court may relieve\\ncreditor from stay “as is necessary to prevent irreparable\\ndamage to the interest of an entity in property”); id. § 363(e)\\n(creditor may request court to place limits or conditions on\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 1 The In re Shannon court further found that § 362(a)(4) and (a)(6) also\\nprohibit the City’s continued retention of debtors’ vehicles. Because the\\nCity is bound by the stay under § 362(a)(3), we do not reach the applica‐\\nbility of the additional stay provisions.\\n\\f16 Nos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023\\n\\ntrustee’s power to use, sell, or lease property to protect credi‐\\ntor’s interest).\\n We recognize that once the City complies with the auto‐\\nmatic stay and immediately turns over vehicles, it will need\\nto seek protection on an expedited basis. Though we leave it\\nto the City and the bankruptcy courts to fashion the precise\\nprocedure for doing so, we note the following: The City will\\nhave notice of the bankruptcy petition when the debtor re‐\\nquests her vehicle, if not sooner. At that time, the City may\\nimmediately file an emergency motion for adequate protec‐\\ntion of its interest in a debtor’s vehicle, which may be heard\\nwithin a day or so, and the City can even file such motions ex\\nparte if necessary. See id. § 363(e); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 4001(a)(2);\\nsee also 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1), (f); Bankr. N.D. Ill. R. 9013‐\\n9(B)(9)(d) (motion for relief from stay under § 362 where mo‐\\nvant alleges security interest in vehicle “ordinarily [] granted\\nwithout hearing”). It will be the rare occasion where a single\\nday’s delay will have lost the City the value of its security.\\nRegardless, the Code is clear that it is the creditor’s obligation\\nto come to court and ask for protection, not, as the City advo‐\\ncates, the debtor’s obligation to file an adversary proceeding\\nagainst every creditor holding her property at the time she\\nfiles for bankruptcy. Cf. In re Lisse, 921 F.3d 629, 639 (7th Cir.\\n2019) (“The basic premise [of Chapter 13] is to facilitate the\\ndebtor’s ability to pay his creditors ….”).\\n The City’s argument that it will be overburdened with re‐\\nsponding to Chapter 13 petitions is ultimately unavailing; any\\nburden is a consequence of the Bankruptcy Code’s focus on\\nprotecting debtors and on preserving property of the estate\\nfor the benefit of all creditors. It perhaps also reflects the im‐\\nportance of vehicles to residents’ everyday lives, particularly\\n\\fNos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023 17\\n\\nwhere residents need their vehicles to commute to work and\\nearn an income in order to eventually pay off their fines and\\nother debts.2 It is not a reason to permit the City to ignore the\\nautomatic stay and hold captive property of the estate, in con‐\\ntravention of the Bankruptcy Code.\\n Furthermore, if a debtor files a bankruptcy petition in bad\\nfaith and immediately dismisses her case, as the City claims\\nmany debtors do solely to retrieve their impounded vehicles,\\nthe City has recourse: it may file a bad faith motion against\\nthe debtor. If the court finds bad faith, it may immediately\\n\\n\\n 2 We additionally note that the “flood” of Chapter 13 filings is evi‐\\ndence of the disproportionate effect of the City’s traffic fines and fees on\\nits low‐income residents, an issue that is not unique to Chicago. See, e.g.,\\nMaura Ewing, Should States Charge Low‐Income Residents Less for Traffic\\nTickets?, The Atlantic (May 13, 2017), https://www.theatlantic.com/poli‐\\ntics/archive/2017/05/traffic‐debt‐california‐brown/526491/ (California);\\nSam Sanders, Study Finds The Poor Subject To Unfair Fines, Driverʹs License\\nSuspensions, NPR: The Two‐Way (Apr. 9, 2015), https://www.npr.org/sec‐\\ntions/thetwo‐way/2015/04/09/398576196/study‐find‐the‐poor‐subject‐to‐\\nunfair‐fines‐drivers‐license‐suspensions (Missouri and California);\\nMelissa Sanchez & Sandhya Kambhampati, How Chicago Ticket Debt Sends\\nBlack Motorists Into Bankruptcy, ProPublica Illinois (Feb. 27, 2018),\\nhttps://features.propublica.org/driven‐into‐debt/chicago‐ticket‐debt‐\\nbankruptcy/ (“[African‐American] neighborhoods account for 40 percent\\nof all debt, though they account for only 22 percent of all the tickets issued\\nin the city over the past decade—suggesting how the debt burdens the\\npoor.”); see also Torie Atkinson, Note, A Fine Scheme: How Municipal Fines\\nBecome Crushing Debt in the Shadow of the New Debtorsʹ Prisons, 51 Harv.\\nC.R.‐C.L. L. Rev. 189, 217–22 (2016) (“The consequences of fines and fees\\ncan be dramatic and unforgiving: unemployment, loss of transportation,\\nhomelessness, loss of government or community services, and poor credit.\\nAnd without the ability to accumulate wealth or capture even the smallest\\nwindfall for themselves, the poor become poorer, unable to climb out of\\nan economic chasm.”).\\n\\f18 Nos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023\\n\\ndismiss the case and may even sanction the debtor. 11 U.S.C.\\n§ 1307(c); see, e.g., Lisse, 921 F.3d at 639–41 (affirming sanctions\\nand dismissal of Chapter 13 petition filed in bad faith to col‐\\nlaterally attack state court judgment); In re Bell, 125 F. App’x\\n54, 57 (7th Cir. 2005) (affirming dismissal of Chapter 13 peti‐\\ntion with prejudice where debtors filed multiple petitions\\n“solely to impede the foreclosure sale” of their home).\\n B. Exceptions to the Stay\\n The City next argues that even if the stay applies, it is ex‐\\ncepted under § 362(b)(3) and (b)(4). “We construe the Bank‐\\nruptcy Code ‘liberally in favor of the debtor and strictly\\nagainst the creditor.’” Village of San Jose v. McWilliams, 284\\nF.3d 785, 790 (7th Cir. 2002) (quoting In re Brown, 108 F.3d\\n1290, 1292 (10th Cir. 1997)). The automatic stay is “one of the\\nfundamental debtor protections provided by the bankruptcy\\nlaws.” Midlantic Nat’l Bank v. N.J. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 474 U.S.\\n494, 503 (1986) (quoting S. Rep. No. 95–989, at 54 (1978), re‐\\nprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5787, 5840). We therefore nar‐\\nrowly construe exceptions “to give the automatic stay its in‐\\ntended broad application.” In re Grede Foundries, Inc., 651 F.3d\\n786, 790 (7th Cir. 2011); see In re Stringer, 847 F.2d 549, 552 (9th\\nCir. 1988) (“Congress clearly intended the automatic stay to\\nbe quite broad. Exemptions to the stay, on the other hand,\\nshould be read narrowly to secure the broad grant of relief to\\nthe debtor.” (footnotes omitted)).\\n\\fNos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023 19\\n\\n 1. Section 362(b)(3)\\n Section 362(b)(3) provides that a Chapter 13 bankruptcy\\npetition does not operate as a § 362(a) automatic stay:\\n of any act to perfect, or to maintain or con‐\\n tinue the perfection of, an interest in prop‐\\n erty to the extent that the trustee’s rights and\\n powers are subject to such perfection under\\n section 546(b) of [the Bankruptcy Code] or to\\n the extent that such act is accomplished\\n within the period provided under section\\n 547(e)(2)(A) of [the Bankruptcy Code].\\n11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(3). Section 546(b) limits a trustee’s power to\\navoid a nonperfected lien by making that power subject to\\nany nonbankruptcy law that “permits perfection of an interest\\nin property to be effective against an entity that acquires\\nrights in such property before the date of perfection,” or “pro‐\\nvides for the maintenance or continuation of perfection of an\\ninterest in property to be effective against an entity that ac‐\\nquires rights in such property before the date on which action\\nis taken to effect such maintenance or continuation.” 11 U.S.C.\\n§ 546(b)(1). The classic example of this exception is for a cred‐\\nitor who has a grace period for perfecting its interest, such as\\nunder the Uniform Commercial Code. See 3 Collier on Bank‐\\nruptcy ¶ 362.05 (explaining § 362(b)(3) permits a purchase‐\\nmoney secured creditor to retroactively perfect under the\\ntwenty‐day grace period provided in Article 9 of the U.C.C.\\nand permits the filing of continuations of financing state‐\\nments under U.C.C. § 9‐515).\\n As the In re Shannon court explained, through §§ 362(b)(3)\\nand 546(b), “Congress sought only to prevent a trustee from\\n\\f20 Nos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023\\n\\navoiding the lien of a creditor when only the intervening\\nbankruptcy stopped the creditor from perfecting or continu‐\\ning perfection of its lien.” Thus, the purpose of these sections\\nis to prevent creditors from losing their lien rights because of\\nthe bankruptcy; they do not permit creditors to retain posses‐\\nsion of debtors’ property. Indeed, if the nonbankruptcy law\\nrequires a creditor to seize property after the filing of a bank‐\\nruptcy petition to perfect or maintain the perfection of a lien,\\n§ 546(b)(2) replaces the seizure requirement with the giving\\nof notice. See 3 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 362.05. “This assures\\nthat the trustee’s right to maintain possession of the property\\nwill be unaffected by the creditor’s right to perfect its inter‐\\nest.” Id. And the (b)(3) exception permits a creditor to give no‐\\ntice under § 546(b)(2) without violating the automatic stay.\\n Here, the City argues the Chicago Municipal Code (a non‐\\nbankruptcy law) gives it the right to retain possession of a\\ndebtor’s vehicle until the debt is paid, thereby creating a pos‐\\nsessory lien on the vehicle. See, e.g., M.C.C. §§ 9‐92‐080(f), 9‐\\n100‐120(b)–(c). It further asserts it must retain the vehicle to\\nmaintain perfection of its lien.\\n First, as to perfection, it is commonly understood that an\\ninterest in property is perfected when it is valid against other\\ncreditors who have an interest in the same property. See Per‐\\nfection, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). The City’s con‐\\ntinued possession of a debtor’s vehicle is one way to perfect\\nits lien because it can demand the amount owed to it from any\\nholder of an interest in the vehicle before it gives up posses‐\\nsion, be that the debtor or another lienholder asserting its\\nright to possession of the vehicle. See M.C.C. § 9‐92‐080(a), (c).\\nHowever, possession is not the only way to perfect; the City\\ncan also perfect its lien by filing notice of its interest in the\\n\\fNos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023 21\\n\\nvehicle, such as with the Secretary of State or the Recorder of\\nDeeds. And the Chapter 13 plan, itself, provides a public rec‐\\nord of secured liens. See 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(5) (regarding the\\nrights of secured creditors related to confirmation of the plan).\\nThus, the City does not need to retain possession of the vehi‐\\ncle to maintain perfection of its lien.\\n Second, despite its arguments to the contrary, the City’s\\npossessory lien is not destroyed by its involuntary loss of pos‐\\nsession due to forced compliance with the Bankruptcy Code’s\\nautomatic stay. The City did not indicate any intent to aban‐\\ndon or release its lien, so its possessory lien survives its loss\\nof possession to the bankruptcy estate. See In re Estate of Miller,\\n556 N.E.2d 568, 572 (Ill. App. Ct. 1990) (“The law respecting\\ncommon law retaining liens is that the involuntary relinquish‐\\nment of retained property pursuant to a court order does not\\nresult in the loss of the lien.”); see also In re Borden, 361 B.R.\\n489, 495 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2007) (“[I]nvoluntary loss of posses‐\\nsion does not defeat the [] lien.”); Restatement (First) of Secu‐\\nrity § 80 cmt. c (1941) (“The lien is a legal interest dependent\\nupon possession. Where the lienor voluntarily gives up the\\npossession, his lien, at least so far as it is a legal interest, is\\ngone. The lienor … does not lose his legal interest if he is de‐\\nprived without his consent of his possession.”).3\\n\\n\\n\\n 3 The City’s attempt to distinguish between loss of possession due to\\ncompliance with a court order versus compliance with the automatic stay\\nis in vain. Section 362 provides for the imposition of punitive damages for\\nwillful violations of the automatic stay. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(k)(1). This\\ndemonstrates that failure to comply with the stay may be punished even\\nmore severely than failure to comply with a court order and, correspond‐\\ningly, there is no question the stay compels the City to return the vehicles.\\n\\f22 Nos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023\\n\\n Because the City does not lose its perfected lien via the in‐\\nvoluntary loss of possession of the debtors’ vehicles to the\\nbankruptcy estates, § 362(b)(3) does not apply to except it\\nfrom the stay. To the extent the City has any doubt about the\\ncontinuation of its lien, when it requests relief from the auto‐\\nmatic stay and adequate protection, it could also ask the bank‐\\nruptcy court to include in its order a notation of the City’s\\ncontinuing lien on the property.\\n 2. Section 362(b)(4)\\n Alternatively, the City looks to § 362(b)(4) to except it from\\nthe stay. That section provides that a Chapter 13 bankruptcy\\npetition does not operate as a § 362(a) automatic stay:\\n of the commencement or continuation of an\\n action or proceeding by a governmental\\n unit … to enforce such governmental unit’s\\n or organization’s police and regulatory\\n power, including the enforcement of a judg‐\\n ment other than a money judgment, ob‐\\n tained in an action or proceeding by the gov‐\\n ernmental unit to enforce such governmen‐\\n tal unit’s … police or regulatory power.\\n11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(4). “This exception has been narrowly con‐\\nstrued to apply to the enforcement of state laws affecting\\nhealth, welfare, morals and safety, but not to ‘regulatory laws\\nthat directly conflict with the control of the res or property by\\nthe bankruptcy court.’” In re Cash Currency Exch., Inc., 762 F.2d\\n542, 555 (7th Cir. 1985) (quoting In re Missouri, 647 F.2d 768,\\n776 (8th Cir. 1981)). The City asserts its impoundment of ve‐\\nhicles is an exercise of its police power to enforce traffic regu‐\\nlations as a matter of public safety. The debtors respond that\\n\\fNos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023 23\\n\\nthe impoundment of vehicles enhances the City’s revenue col‐\\nlection rather than protects public safety, and it is therefore an\\nenforcement of a money judgment which § 362(b)(4) does not\\npermit.\\n Courts apply two tests to determine whether a state’s ac‐\\ntions fall within the scope of § 362(b)(4)—the pecuniary pur‐\\npose test and the public policy test. Chao v. Hosp. Staffing\\nServs., Inc., 270 F.3d 374, 385–86 (6th Cir. 2001); In re First All.\\nMortg. Co., 263 B.R. 99, 107–08 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2001). Satisfying\\neither test is sufficient for the exception to apply. See First All.\\nMortg., 263 B.R. at 108; see also 3 Collier on Bankruptcy\\n¶ 362.05.\\n The pecuniary purpose test requires the court to “look to\\nwhat specific acts the government wishes to carry out and de‐\\ntermine if such execution would result in an economic ad‐\\nvantage over third parties in relation to the debtor’s estate.”\\nSolis v. Caro, No. 11‐cv‐6884, 2012 WL 1230824, at *5 (N.D. Ill.\\nApr. 12, 2012) (quoting In re Emerald Casino, Inc., No. 03‐cv‐\\n05457, 2003 WL 23147946, at *8 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 24, 2003)). “[I]f\\nthe focus of the police power is directed at the debtor’s finan‐\\ncial obligations rather than the [government’s] health and\\nsafety concerns, the automatic stay is applicable.” In re Ellis,\\n66 B.R. 821, 825 (N.D. Ill. 1986) (quoting In re Sampson, 17 B.R.\\n528, 530 (Bankr. D. Conn. 1982)). Though the City says its im‐\\npoundment laws are “designed to further the safety and wel‐\\nfare of Chicago residents” with just an “ancillary pecuniary\\nbenefit,” we disagree. In retaining possession of the vehicles\\nuntil it is paid in full, the City is “attempting to satisfy a debt\\noutside the bankruptcy process,” which would give it an ad‐\\nvantage over other parties interested in the debtors’ estates.\\n\\f24 Nos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023\\n\\nEmerald Casino, 2003 WL 23147946, at *9. The City’s act is fo‐\\ncused on the debtor’s financial obligation, not its safety con‐\\ncerns, and thus fails the pecuniary purpose test.\\n Alternatively, the public policy test considers whether the\\nstate action is principally to effectuate public policy or to ad‐\\njudicate private rights. Hosp. Staffing Servs., 270 F.3d at 385–\\n86; Caro, 2012 WL 1230824, at *4. The public policy the City\\nhighlights is enforcing its traffic ordinances against repeat of‐\\nfenders “for the safety and convenience of the public.” It ex‐\\nplains the traffic ordinance system gradually escalates, begin‐\\nning with the issuance of fines then intensifying to immobili‐\\nzation and impoundment only after an individual ignores re‐\\npeat citations. Without impoundment as a general deterrence,\\nthe City argues, it cannot enforce its traffic regulations. See\\nEmerald Casino, 2003 WL 23147946, at *6.\\n The debtors argue the balance between revenue collection\\nand public safety weighs heavily toward the former. Addi‐\\ntionally, prior to the 2016 Municipal Code amendment impos‐\\ning a possessory lien on impounded vehicles, the City re‐\\nleased impounded vehicles to Chapter 13 debtors. When the\\nCity recently amended the Code, it did not mention public\\nsafety concerns but rather stated the amendment was “in re‐\\nsponse to a growing practice of individuals attempting to es‐\\ncape financial liability for their immobilized or impounded\\nvehicles.” Chi., Ill., Ordinance, Amendment of M.C.C. § 9‐\\n100‐120 (July 6, 2017).\\n We are persuaded that, on balance, this is an exercise of\\nrevenue collection more so than police power. As debtors ob‐\\nserve, a not insignificant portion of the City’s annual operat‐\\ning fund comes from its collection of parking and traffic tick‐\\nets. See City of Chicago, 2019 Budget Overview 29, 192 (2018),\\n\\fNos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023 25\\n\\nhttps://chicago.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=6683992&\\nGUID=CAEFBC7F‐7C1A‐4B2E‐9F8B‐0CB931B3EE88 (fines,\\nforfeitures, and penalties—primarily from parking tickets—\\nconstitute approximately nine percent of the 2019 fund).\\nMoreover, the kind of violations the City enforces are not tra‐\\nditional police power regulations; these fines are for parking\\ntickets, failure to display a City tax sticker, and minor moving\\nviolations. Even tickets for a suspended license, a seemingly\\nmore serious offense, are often the result of unpaid parking\\ntickets and are thus not related to public safety. And the City\\nimpounds vehicles regardless of what violations the owner\\nhas accrued, without distinguishing between more serious vi‐\\nolations that could affect public safety versus the mere failure\\nto pay for parking. Most notably, the City imposes the mone‐\\ntary penalty on the owner of the vehicle, not the driver, which\\nsignals a seeming disconnect if the City actually has safety\\nconcerns about the offending driver. As the ordinance\\namending M.C.C. § 9‐100‐120 demonstrates, the City’s focus\\nis on the financial liability of vehicle owners, not on public\\nsafety.\\n But even if we assume that the adjudication of these viola‐\\ntions is the result of the City’s exercise of police and regula‐\\ntory power, the City cannot enforce these final determinations\\nof liability if they are “money judgment[s]” as the term is used\\nin § 362(b)(4). See S. Rep. No. 95‐989, at 52 (1978), reprinted in\\n1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5787, 5838 (“Since the assets of the debtor\\nare in the possession and control of the bankruptcy court, and\\n… constitute a fund out of which all creditors are entitled to\\nshare, enforcement by a governmental unit of a money judg‐\\nment would give it preferential treatment to the detriment of\\nall other creditors.”). A judgment is a “money judgment” that\\ncannot be enforced without violating the automatic stay if it\\n\\f26 Nos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023\\n\\nrequires payment. 3 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 362.05 (“[T]he\\ngovernmental unit still may commence or continue any police\\nor regulatory action, including one seeking a money judg‐\\nment, but it may enforce only those judgments and orders that do\\nnot require payment.” (emphasis added)); First All. Mortg., 263\\nB.R. at 107 (same); see also 3 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 362.05\\n(“Although a governmental unit may obtain a liability deter‐\\nmination, it may not collect on any monetary judgment re‐\\nceived.” (emphasis added)); SEC v. Brennan, 230 F.3d 65, 71\\n(2d. Cir. 2000) (“[Section] 362(b)(4) permits the entry of a\\nmoney judgment against a debtor … [but] anything beyond the\\nmere entry of a money judgment against a debtor is prohibited\\nby the automatic stay.”).\\n The City claims it did not have money judgments “be‐\\ncause it did not pursue the additional steps required to turn\\nthe citations into money judgments in the circuit court.” We\\ndisagree. A “money judgment” is simply an order that iden‐\\ntifies “the parties for and against whom judgment is being en‐\\ntered” and “a definite and certain designation of the amount …\\nowed.” Penn Terra Ltd. v. Dep’t of Envtl. Res., 733 F.2d 267, 275\\n(3d Cir. 1984). Prior to impounding a vehicle, the City must\\nadministratively adjudicate the debtor’s violations, see M.C.C.\\n§ 9‐100‐010, and those adjudications result in a determination\\nof final liability—i.e., a judgment. Only after a debtor has two\\nor three judgments against it does the Municipal Code au‐\\nthorize the City to impound the vehicle until the debtor pays\\nthe judgments and related costs and fees. See id. §§ 2‐14‐\\n132(c)(1)(A), 9‐92‐080, 9‐100‐120(b). So, without any addi‐\\ntional steps, the City had final determinations of liability re‐\\nquiring these particular debtors to pay it specific sums.\\n\\fNos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023 27\\n\\n The City does not contest that it conditioned the release of\\nthe debtors’ vehicles on payment of the amount specified in\\nthe final determinations of liability. Cf. id. § 9‐100‐100(b)\\n(“Any fine and penalty … remaining unpaid after the notice\\nof final determination of liability is sent shall constitute a debt\\ndue and owing the city ….”). The continued possession of the\\nvehicles is the City’s attempt to short‐circuit the state court\\ncollection process and to enforce final judgments requiring\\nmonetary payment from the debtors. As such, the City is not\\nexcepted from the stay under § 362(b)(4). That the City is not\\nexcepted under § 362(b)(4) does not “permit[] debtors to park\\nfor free wherever they like, or to drive without a risk of fines\\nfor moving violations ….” In re Steenes, 918 F.3d 554, 558 (7th\\nCir. 2019). This just means the City needs to satisfy the debts\\nowed to it through the bankruptcy process, as do all other\\ncreditors.\\n III. Conclusion\\n For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgments of the\\nbankruptcy courts.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4408577/\", \"author_raw\": \"Joel Martin Flaum\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"FLAUM"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"KANNE"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"SCUDDER"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4631324/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":6,"string":"6"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: In RE: Robbin L. FULTON, Debtor-Appellee. Appeal Of: City of Chicago in Re: Jason S. Howard, Debtor-Appellee. Appeal Of: City of Chicago in Re: George Peake, Debtor-Appellee. Appeal Of: City of Chicago in Re: Timothy Shannon, Debtor-Appellee. Appeal Of: City of Chicago\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-06-19\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\n\n\n\n\nNo. 18‐2527\nIN RE: ROBBIN L. FULTON,\n Debtor‐Appellee.\nAPPEAL OF: CITY OF CHICAGO\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court\n for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division‐BK.\n No. 18‐02860 — Jack B. Schmetterer, Bankruptcy Judge.\n ____________________\nNo. 18‐2793\nIN RE: JASON S. HOWARD,\n Debtor‐Appellee.\nAPPEAL OF: CITY OF CHICAGO\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court\n for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division‐BK.\n No. 17‐25141 — Jacqueline P. Cox, Bankruptcy Judge.\n ____________________\n\f2 Nos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023\n\nNo. 18‐2835\nIN RE: GEORGE PEAKE,\n Debtor‐Appellee.\nAPPEAL OF: CITY OF CHICAGO\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court\n for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division‐BK.\n No. 18‐16544 — Deborah Lee Thorne, Bankruptcy Judge.\n ____________________\nNo. 18‐3023\nIN RE: TIMOTHY SHANNON,\n Debtor‐Appellee.\nAPPEAL OF: CITY OF CHICAGO\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court\n for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division‐BK.\n No. 18‐04116 — Carol A. Doyle, Chief Bankruptcy Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED MAY 14, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 19, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before FLAUM, KANNE, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\n FLAUM, Circuit Judge. In this consolidated appeal of four\nChapter 13 bankruptcies, we consider whether the City of\nChicago may ignore the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay\nand continue to hold a debtor’s vehicle until the debtor pays\nher outstanding parking tickets. Prior to the debtors’ filing for\nbankruptcy, the City impounded each of their vehicles for\n\fNos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023 3\n\nfailure to pay multiple traffic fines. After the debtors filed\ntheir Chapter 13 petitions, the City refused to return their ve‐\nhicles, claiming it needed to maintain possession to continue\nperfection of its possessory liens on the vehicles and that it\nwould only return the vehicles when the debtors paid in full\ntheir outstanding fines. The bankruptcy courts each held that\nthe City violated the automatic stay by “exercising control”\nover property of the bankruptcy estate and that none of the\nexceptions to the stay applied. The courts ordered the City to\nreturn debtors’ vehicles and imposed sanctions on the City for\nviolating the stay.\n This is not our first time addressing this issue: in Thompson\nv. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 566 F.3d 699 (7th Cir. 2009),\nwe held that a creditor must comply with the automatic stay\nand return a debtor’s vehicle upon her filing of a bankruptcy\npetition. We decline the City’s request to overrule Thompson.\nWe therefore affirm the bankruptcy courts’ judgments relying\non Thompson, and we also agree with the bankruptcy courts\nthat none of the exceptions to the stay apply.\n I. Background\n The Chicago Municipal Code permits creditor‐appellant\nthe City of Chicago to immobilize and then impound a vehicle\nif its owner has three or more “final determinations of liabil‐\nity,” or two final determinations that are over a year old, “for\nparking, standing, compliance, automated traffic law enforce‐\nment system, or automated speed enforcement system viola‐\ntion[s].” Municipal Code of Chicago (“M.C.C.”) § 9‐100‐\n120(b); see also id. § 9‐80‐240(a) (providing for impoundment\nof vehicles “operated by a person with a suspended or re‐\nvoked driver’s license”). The fines for violations of the City’s\nTraffic Code range from $25 (e.g., parallel parking violation)\n\f4 Nos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023\n\nto $500 (e.g., parking on a public street without displaying a\nwheel tax license emblem). Id. § 9‐100‐020(b)–(c). Failure to\npay the fine within twenty‐five days automatically doubles\nthe penalty. Id. § 9‐100‐050(e). After a vehicle is impounded,\nthe owner is further subjected to towing and storage fees, see\nid. § 9‐64‐250(c), and to the City’s costs and attorney’s fees for\ncollection activity. Id. §§ 1‐19‐020, 2‐14‐132(c)(1)(A). To re‐\ntrieve her vehicle, an owner may either pay the fines, towing\nand storage fees, and collection costs and fees in full, id. § 2‐\n14‐132(c)(1)(A), or pay the full amount via an installment plan\nover a period of up to thirty‐six months, provided she makes\nan initial payment of half the fines and penalties plus all of\nthe impoundment, towing, and storage charges. Id. § 9‐100‐\n101(a)(2)–(3).\n In 2016, the City amended the Code to include: “Any ve‐\nhicle impounded by the City or its designee shall be subject to\na possessory lien in favor of the City in the amount required\nto obtain release of the vehicle.” Id. § 9‐92‐080(f). Based on this\nprovision, the City began refusing to release impounded ve‐\nhicles to debtors who had filed Chapter 13 petitions. That is\njust what occurred in these four cases.\n A. In re Fulton\n Debtor‐appellee Robbin Fulton uses a vehicle to commute\nto work, transport her young daughter to day care, and care\nfor her elderly parents on weekends. On December 24, 2017,\nthree weeks after she purchased a 2015 Kia Soul, the City\ntowed and impounded the vehicle for a prior citation of driv‐\ning on a suspended license. Fulton filed a Chapter 13 bank‐\nruptcy petition on January 31, 2018 and filed a plan on Febru‐\nary 5, treating the City as a general unsecured creditor. The\nCity filed a general unsecured proof of claim on February 23\n\fNos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023 5\n\nfor $9,391.20. After the court confirmed Fulton’s plan on\nMarch 21, she requested the City turn over her vehicle. The\nCity then amended its proof of claim to add impound fees, for\na total of $11,831.20, and to assert its status as a secured cred‐\nitor; it did not return Fulton’s vehicle.\n On May 2, Fulton filed a motion for sanctions arguing the\nCity was required to turn over her vehicle pursuant to Thomp‐\nson and that its failure to do so was sanctionable conduct. The\nCity countered that Fulton must seek turnover through an ad‐\nversary proceeding. It asserted it was retaining possession to\nperfect its possessory lien and was thus excepted from the au‐\ntomatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(3).\n On May 25, the bankruptcy court held that the City was\nrequired to return Fulton’s vehicle under Thompson and that\nthe City was not excepted from the stay under § 362(b)(3). The\ncourt ordered the City to turn over Fulton’s vehicle no later\nthan May 29, imposed a sanction of $100 for every day the\nCity failed to comply, and sustained Fulton’s objection to the\nCity’s claim as a secured creditor. The City moved to stay the\norder in the district court pending appeal; the district court\ndenied the stay request on September 10. Eventually, the City\nreturned Fulton’s vehicle. At no point did the City initiate\nproceedings to protect its rights under § 363(e).\n B. In re Shannon\n The City impounded debtor‐appellee Timothy Shannon’s\n1997 Buick Park Avenue on January 8, 2018 for unpaid park‐\ning tickets. Shannon filed a Chapter 13 petition on February\n15. On February 27, the City filed an unsecured proof of claim\nfor $3,160 in fines dating back to 1999. Shannon, in turn, filed\na proposed plan that did not include the City as a secured\n\f6 Nos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023\n\ncreditor, to which the City did not object, and the court con‐\nfirmed the plan on May 1. When Shannon sought the return\nof his vehicle, the City amended its proof of claim, adding\nfines, storage, and towing fees for a total of $5,600, and stated\nthe claim was secured by its possession of Shannon’s vehicle.\n Shannon filed a motion for sanctions on June 12, asserting\nthe stay required the City to turn over his vehicle. The court\ngranted his motion on September 7; it held the City’s claim\nwas unsecured because it did not object to the plan that char‐\nacterized the debt as such. It also determined the City violated\nthe stay by failing to return Shannon’s vehicle, that the\n§§ 362(b)(3) and (b)(4) exceptions to the stay did not apply,\nand that the City further violated § 362(a)(4) and (a)(6) by re‐\ntaining the vehicle. The court noted the City was free to file a\nmotion seeking adequate protection of its lien. The City re‐\nturned Shannon’s car and did not file any such motion.\n C. In re Peake\n Debtor‐appellee George Peake relies on his car to travel\napproximately forty‐five miles from his home to work. The\nCity impounded his 2007 Lincoln MKZ for unpaid fines on\nJune 1, 2018. Peake filed a Chapter 13 petition on June 9. In\nresponse, the City filed a secured proof of claim for $5,393.27\nand asserted a possessory lien on his vehicle. After the City\nrefused Peake’s request to return his vehicle, he filed a motion\nfor sanctions and for turnover. On August 15, the bankruptcy\ncourt granted the motion; it held that neither § 362(b)(3) nor\n(b)(4) applied, so the City’s retention of Peake’s vehicle vio‐\nlated the stay, and it ordered the City to release his vehicle\nimmediately. The City filed a motion to stay the order pend‐\ning appeal, which the court denied on August 22. The same\nday, Peake filed a motion for civil contempt based on the\n\fNos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023 7\n\nCity’s refusal to release his vehicle. The court granted the mo‐\ntion and entered an order requiring the City to pay monetary\nsanctions—$100 per day from August 17 through August 22\nand $500 per day thereafter until the City returned his vehicle.\nThe City filed an emergency motion for a stay pending appeal\nin our Court, which we denied. Finally, the City released\nPeake’s vehicle. At no point did the City file a motion to pro‐\ntect its interest in the vehicle.\n D. In re Howard\n The City immobilized debtor‐appellee Jason Howard’s ve‐\nhicle on August 9, 2017 and impounded it soon after. Howard\nfiled a Chapter 13 petition on August 22. The City filed a se‐\ncured proof of claim on August 23 for $17,110.80. The court\nconfirmed Howard’s plan on October 16, which included a\nnonpriority unsecured debt of $13,000 owed to the City for\nparking tickets. Though the Code did not impose an auto‐\nmatic stay when Howard filed his petition due to his prior\ndismissed bankruptcy petitions, see 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(4)(A),\nthe court granted Howard’s motion to impose a stay when it\nconfirmed his plan on October 16. The City did not object to\nits treatment as unsecured under the plan and did not appeal\nthe confirmation order; rather, it simply refused to release\nHoward’s vehicle unless he paid 100% of its claim.\n On January 22, 2018, the court issued a rule to show cause\nto the City why it should not be sanctioned for refusing to re‐\nlease Howard’s vehicle in accordance with Thompson. The\ncourt rejected the City’s argument that it was excepted from\nthe stay under § 362(b)(3) and, on April 16, 2018, ordered\nsanctions of $50 per day beginning August 22, 2017 for the\nCity’s violation of the stay.\n\f8 Nos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023\n\n After the City filed its opening appellate brief, Howard\nfiled notice of his intention not to participate in the appeal.\nHis counsel explained Howard’s bankruptcy case had been\ndismissed and the City disposed of his vehicle. He has since\nfiled a new bankruptcy case to address his parking tickets but\nhas abandoned interest in the vehicle that was the subject of\nthe relevant Chapter 13 petition in the bankruptcy court be‐\nlow. However, “issues related to an alleged violation of the\nautomatic stay” are not mooted by dismissal of a bankruptcy\npetition, Denby‐Peterson v. Nu2u Auto World, 595 B.R. 184, 188\n(D.N.J. 2018); a court “must have the power to compensate\nvictims of violations of the automatic stay and punish the vi‐\nolators, even after the conclusion of the underlying bank‐\nruptcy case.” In re Johnson, 575 F.3d 1079, 1083 (10th Cir. 2009)\n(citing In re Davis, 177 B.R. 907, 911–12 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1995)).\n * * *\n In each of these four cases, the City appealed the bank‐\nruptcy courts’ orders finding the City violated the stay. These\ncases have been consolidated for appeal.\n II. Discussion\n The main question before us is whether the City is obli‐\ngated to return a debtor’s vehicle upon her filing of a Chapter\n13 bankruptcy petition, or whether the City is entitled to hold\nthe debtor’s vehicle until she pays the fines and costs or until\nshe obtains a court order requiring the City to turn over the\nvehicle. We review a bankruptcy court’s factual findings for\nclear error and conclusions of law de novo. In re Jepson, 816\nF.3d 942, 945 (7th Cir. 2016).\n\fNos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023 9\n\n A. The Automatic Stay\n Section 362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that a\nChapter 13 bankruptcy petition “operates as a stay, applicable\nto all entities, of … any act to obtain possession of property of\nthe estate or of property from the estate or to exercise control\nover property of the estate.” 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3) (emphasis\nadded). We applied this provision to a very similar factual sit‐\nuation in Thompson v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. There, a\ncreditor seized a debtor’s car after he defaulted on payments.\n566 F.3d at 700. The debtor filed a Chapter 13 petition and at‐\ntempted to retrieve his car, but the creditor refused. Id. We\nconsidered two issues relating to § 362(a)(3): whether the\ncreditor “exercised control” of property of the bankruptcy es‐\ntate by failing to return the vehicle after the debtor filed for\nbankruptcy, and whether the creditor was required to return\nthe vehicle prior to a court determination establishing the\ndebtor could provide adequate protection for the creditor’s\ninterest in the vehicle. Id. at 701.\n 1. “Exercise Control”\n First, we observed in Thompson there was no debate the\ndebtor has an equitable interest in his vehicle, and “as such, it\nis property of his bankruptcy estate.” 566 F.3d at 701 (citing\nUnited States v. Whiting Pools, Inc., 462 U.S. 198, 203 (1983)); see\n5 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 541.01 (16th ed. 2019) (“Congress’s\nintent to define property of the estate in the broadest possible\nsense is evident from the language of the statute which, in sec‐\ntion 541(a)(1), initially defines the scope of estate property to\nbe all legal or equitable interests of the debtor in property as\nof the commencement of the case, wherever located and by\nwhomever held.”). We then rejected the creditor’s argument\n\f10 Nos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023\n\nthat passively holding the asset did not satisfy the Code’s def‐\ninition of exercising control: “Holding onto an asset, refusing\nto return it, and otherwise prohibiting a debtor’s beneficial\nuse of an asset all fit within th[e] definition, as well as within\nthe commonsense meaning of the word.” Thompson, 566 F.3d\nat 702. As we explained, limiting the reach of “exercising con‐\ntrol” to “selling or otherwise destroying the asset,” as the\ncreditor proposed, did not fit with bankruptcy’s purpose:\n“The primary goal of reorganization bankruptcy is to group\nall of the debtor’s property together in his estate such that he\nmay rehabilitate his credit and pay off his debts; this neces‐\nsarily extends to all property, even property lawfully seized\npre‐petition.” Id. (citing Whiting Pools, 462 U.S. at 203–04).\n Additionally, Congress amended § 362(a)(3) in 1984 to\nprohibit conduct that “exercise[d] control” over estate assets.\nWe determined this addition suggested congressional intent\nto make the stay more inclusive by including conduct of\n“creditors who seized an asset pre‐petition.” Id.; see In re\nJavens, 107 F.3d 359, 368 (6th Cir. 1997) (“The fact that ‘to ob‐\ntain possession’ was amended to ‘to obtain possession … or\nto exercise control’ hints [] that this kind of ‘control’ might be\na broadening of the concept of possession … It could also\nhave been intended to make clear that [§ 362](a)(3) applied to\nproperty of the estate that was not in the possession of the\ndebtor.” (first alteration in original)); In re Del Mission Ltd., 98\nF.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir. 1996) (The 1984 amendment\n“broaden[ed] the scope of § 362(a)(3) to proscribe the mere\nknowing retention of estate property.”). We therefore held\nthat in retaining possession of the car, the creditor violated the\nautomatic stay in § 362(a)(3). Thompson, 566 F.3d at 703.\n\fNos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023 11\n\n 2. Compulsory Turnover\n Next, we concluded § 362(a)(3) becomes effective immedi‐\nately upon filing the petition and is not dependent on the\ndebtor first bringing a turnover action. Id. at 707–08. In so con‐\ncluding, we relied on a plain reading of §§ 363(e) and 542(a)\nand the Supreme Court’s decision in Whiting Pools.\n Section 363(e) provides:\n [O]n request of an entity that has an interest in\n property used, sold, or leased, or proposed to be\n used, sold, or leased … by the trustee, the court,\n with or without a hearing, shall prohibit or con‐\n dition such use, sale, or lease as is necessary to\n provide adequate protection of such interest.\n11 U.S.C. § 363(e). The creditor acknowledged, and we\nagreed, that it has the burden of requesting protection of its\ninterest in the asset under § 363(e). “However, if a creditor is\nallowed to retain possession, then this burden is rendered\nmeaningless—a creditor has no incentive to seek protection of\nan asset of which it already has possession.” Thompson, 566\nF.3d at 704. For § 363(e) to have meaning then, the asset must\nbe returned to the estate prior to the creditor seeking protec‐\ntion of its interest. Id.; cf. In re Sharon, 234 B.R. 676, 684 (B.A.P.\n6th Cir. 1999) (“[T]he Bankruptcy Code does not elevate [the\ncreditor’s] adequate protection right above the Chapter 13\ndebtor’s right to possession and use of a car.”).\n Moreover, § 542(a) “indicates that turnover of a seized as‐\nset is compulsory.” Thompson, 566 F.3d at 704. Section 542(a)\nrequires that a creditor in possession of property of the estate\n“shall deliver to the trustee, and account for, such property or\n\f12 Nos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023\n\nthe value of such property, unless such property is of incon‐\nsequential value or benefit to the estate.” 11 U.S.C. § 542(a)\n(emphasis added). We observed that a majority of courts had\nfound § 542(a) worked in conjunction with § 362(a) “to draw\nback into the estate a right of possession that is claimed by a\nlien creditor pursuant to a pre‐petition seizure; the Code then\nsubstitutes ‘adequate protection’ for possession as one of the\nlien creditor’s rights in the bankruptcy case.” Thompson, 566\nF.3d at 704 (quoting Sharon, 234 B.R. at 683). Because “[t]he\nright of possession is incident to the automatic stay,” id., the\ncreditor must first return the asset to the bankruptcy estate.\nOnly then is “the bankruptcy court [] empowered to condition\nthe right of the estate to keep possession of the asset on the\nprovision of certain specified adequate protections to the\ncreditor.” Id.; see also 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) (“On request of a\nparty in interest and after notice and a hearing, the court shall\ngrant relief from the stay provided under [§ 362](a) … for\ncause, including the lack of adequate protection of an interest\nin property ….”). The Supreme Court indicated as much in\nWhiting Pools when it explained that a “creditor with a se‐\ncured interest in property included in the estate must look to\n[§ 363(e)] for protection, rather than to the nonbankruptcy remedy\nof possession.” 462 U.S. at 204 (emphasis added).\n 3. Thompson Controls\n Applying Thompson to the facts before us, we conclude, as\neach bankruptcy court did, that the City violated the auto‐\nmatic stay pursuant to § 362(a)(3) by retaining possession of\nthe debtors’ vehicles after they declared bankruptcy. See In re\nShannon, 18‐bk‐04116, Mem. Op. at 11 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Sept. 7,\n2018), ECF No. 64 (“Thompson [] requires any secured creditor\nin possession of a debtor’s vehicle to return it immediately\n\fNos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023 13\n\nand seek adequate protection ….”); In re Peake, 18‐bk‐16544,\nMem. Op. at 3 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Aug. 15, 2018), ECF No. 40\n(“[T]he City’s conduct in retaining possession of the vehicle\nviolates [§] 362(a)(3) as that section has been interpreted … in\nThompson ….”); In re Fulton, 18‐bk‐02860, Mem. Op. at 2\n(Bankr. N.D. Ill. May 25, 2018), ECF No. 39 (“[T]he City is cir‐\ncumventing entirely the procedural burden imposed on it by\nThompson and the protections provided to debtors by the au‐\ntomatic stay.”); In re Howard, 17‐bk‐25141, Mem. Op. at 10\n(Bankr. N.D. Ill. Apr. 16, 2018), ECF. No. 63 (“[Section 362(a)]\ndoes not authorize continued possession of impounded vehi‐\ncles in contravention of the Thompson ruling.”). The City was\nrequired to return debtors’ vehicles and seek protection\nwithin the framework of the Bankruptcy Code rather than\nthrough “the nonbankruptcy remedy of possession.” Whiting\nPools, 462 U.S. at 204.\n The City acknowledges Thompson controls but asks us to\noverrule Thompson for three reasons: (1) property impounded\nprior to bankruptcy is not property of the bankruptcy estate\nbecause the debtors did not have a possessory interest in their\nvehicles at the time of filing; (2) the stay requires creditors to\nmaintain the status quo and not take any action, such as re‐\nturning property to the debtor, so the onus is on the debtor to\nmove for a turnover action to retrieve her vehicle; and (3) the\nplain language of § 362(a)(3) requires an “act” to exercise con‐\ntrol, and passive retention of the vehicle is not an “act.”\n We decline the City’s request; Thompson considered and\nrejected these arguments. More fundamentally, the City’s ar‐\nguments ignore the purpose of bankruptcy—“to allow the\ndebtor to regain his financial foothold and repay his credi‐\n\f14 Nos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023\n\ntors.” Thompson, 566 F.3d at 706; see also 5 Collier on Bank‐\nruptcy ¶ 541.01 (“[The] central aggregation and protection of\nproperty [] promote[s] the fundamental purposes of the Bank‐\nruptcy Code: the breathing room given to a debtor that at‐\ntempts to make a fresh start, and the equality of distribution\nof assets among similarly situated creditors according to the\npriorities set forth within the Code.”). To effectively do so, a\ndebtor must be able to use his assets “while the court works\nwith both debtor and creditors to establish a rehabilitation\nand repayment plan.” Thompson, 566 F.3d at 707; see also Whit‐\ning Pools, 462 U.S. at 203 (“[T]o facilitate the rehabilitation of\nthe debtor’s business, all the debtor’s property must be in‐\ncluded in the reorganization estate.”). This is why § 542 com‐\npels the return of property to the estate, including “property\nin which the debtor did not have a possessory interest at the\ntime the bankruptcy proceedings commenced.” Whiting Pools,\n462 U.S. at 205; see In re Weber, 719 F.3d 72, 79 (2d Cir. 2013)\n(“Whiting Pools teaches that the filing of a petition will gener‐\nally transform a debtor’s equitable interest into a bankruptcy\nestate’s possessory right in the vehicle.”). Thus, contrary to\nthe City’s argument, the status quo in bankruptcy is the return\nof the debtor’s property to the estate. In refusing to return the\nvehicles to their respective estates, the City was not passively\nabiding by the bankruptcy rules but actively resisting § 542(a)\nto exercise control over debtors’ vehicles.\n What’s more, the position we took in Thompson brought\nour Circuit in line with the majority rule, held by the Second,\nEighth, and Ninth Circuits. See Weber, 719 F.3d 72; Del Mission\n98 F.3d 1147; In re Knaus, 889 F.2d 773 (8th Cir. 1989). Alt‐\nhough the Tenth Circuit recently adopted the City’s view, see\nIn re Cowen, 849 F.3d 943 (10th Cir. 2017), that position is still\n\fNos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023 15\n\nthe minority rule. Our reasoning in Thompson continues to re‐\nflect the majority position and we believe it is the appropriate\nreading of the bankruptcy statutes. At bottom, the City wants\nto maintain possession of the vehicles not because it wants the\nvehicles but to put pressure on the debtors to pay their tickets.\nThat is precisely what the stay is intended to prevent.1\n The City, though, pleads necessity; it claims that, without\nretaining possession, it is helpless to prevent the loss or de‐\nstruction of the vehicles. It did not attempt in any of these\ncases, however, to seek adequate protection of its interests\nthrough the methods available under the Bankruptcy Code,\nand at oral argument, the City asserted it did not have “the\nopportunity” to request such protection before the bank‐\nruptcy courts ordered it to return the vehicles. The record be‐\nlies this statement. In each case, the parties engaged in motion\npractice, often over the course of months, before the courts\nheld the City to be in violation of the stay. At any point the\nCity could have sought adequate protection of its interests,\nbut it chose not to avail itself of the Code’s available proce‐\ndures. See, e.g., 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) (court may relieve credi‐\ntor from the stay if debtor cannot adequately protect credi‐\ntor’s interest in the property); id. § 362(f) (court may relieve\ncreditor from stay “as is necessary to prevent irreparable\ndamage to the interest of an entity in property”); id. § 363(e)\n(creditor may request court to place limits or conditions on\n\n\n\n\n 1 The In re Shannon court further found that § 362(a)(4) and (a)(6) also\nprohibit the City’s continued retention of debtors’ vehicles. Because the\nCity is bound by the stay under § 362(a)(3), we do not reach the applica‐\nbility of the additional stay provisions.\n\f16 Nos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023\n\ntrustee’s power to use, sell, or lease property to protect credi‐\ntor’s interest).\n We recognize that once the City complies with the auto‐\nmatic stay and immediately turns over vehicles, it will need\nto seek protection on an expedited basis. Though we leave it\nto the City and the bankruptcy courts to fashion the precise\nprocedure for doing so, we note the following: The City will\nhave notice of the bankruptcy petition when the debtor re‐\nquests her vehicle, if not sooner. At that time, the City may\nimmediately file an emergency motion for adequate protec‐\ntion of its interest in a debtor’s vehicle, which may be heard\nwithin a day or so, and the City can even file such motions ex\nparte if necessary. See id. § 363(e); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 4001(a)(2);\nsee also 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1), (f); Bankr. N.D. Ill. R. 9013‐\n9(B)(9)(d) (motion for relief from stay under § 362 where mo‐\nvant alleges security interest in vehicle “ordinarily [] granted\nwithout hearing”). It will be the rare occasion where a single\nday’s delay will have lost the City the value of its security.\nRegardless, the Code is clear that it is the creditor’s obligation\nto come to court and ask for protection, not, as the City advo‐\ncates, the debtor’s obligation to file an adversary proceeding\nagainst every creditor holding her property at the time she\nfiles for bankruptcy. Cf. In re Lisse, 921 F.3d 629, 639 (7th Cir.\n2019) (“The basic premise [of Chapter 13] is to facilitate the\ndebtor’s ability to pay his creditors ….”).\n The City’s argument that it will be overburdened with re‐\nsponding to Chapter 13 petitions is ultimately unavailing; any\nburden is a consequence of the Bankruptcy Code’s focus on\nprotecting debtors and on preserving property of the estate\nfor the benefit of all creditors. It perhaps also reflects the im‐\nportance of vehicles to residents’ everyday lives, particularly\n\fNos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023 17\n\nwhere residents need their vehicles to commute to work and\nearn an income in order to eventually pay off their fines and\nother debts.2 It is not a reason to permit the City to ignore the\nautomatic stay and hold captive property of the estate, in con‐\ntravention of the Bankruptcy Code.\n Furthermore, if a debtor files a bankruptcy petition in bad\nfaith and immediately dismisses her case, as the City claims\nmany debtors do solely to retrieve their impounded vehicles,\nthe City has recourse: it may file a bad faith motion against\nthe debtor. If the court finds bad faith, it may immediately\n\n\n 2 We additionally note that the “flood” of Chapter 13 filings is evi‐\ndence of the disproportionate effect of the City’s traffic fines and fees on\nits low‐income residents, an issue that is not unique to Chicago. See, e.g.,\nMaura Ewing, Should States Charge Low‐Income Residents Less for Traffic\nTickets?, The Atlantic (May 13, 2017), https://www.theatlantic.com/poli‐\ntics/archive/2017/05/traffic‐debt‐california‐brown/526491/ (California);\nSam Sanders, Study Finds The Poor Subject To Unfair Fines, Driverʹs License\nSuspensions, NPR: The Two‐Way (Apr. 9, 2015), https://www.npr.org/sec‐\ntions/thetwo‐way/2015/04/09/398576196/study‐find‐the‐poor‐subject‐to‐\nunfair‐fines‐drivers‐license‐suspensions (Missouri and California);\nMelissa Sanchez & Sandhya Kambhampati, How Chicago Ticket Debt Sends\nBlack Motorists Into Bankruptcy, ProPublica Illinois (Feb. 27, 2018),\nhttps://features.propublica.org/driven‐into‐debt/chicago‐ticket‐debt‐\nbankruptcy/ (“[African‐American] neighborhoods account for 40 percent\nof all debt, though they account for only 22 percent of all the tickets issued\nin the city over the past decade—suggesting how the debt burdens the\npoor.”); see also Torie Atkinson, Note, A Fine Scheme: How Municipal Fines\nBecome Crushing Debt in the Shadow of the New Debtorsʹ Prisons, 51 Harv.\nC.R.‐C.L. L. Rev. 189, 217–22 (2016) (“The consequences of fines and fees\ncan be dramatic and unforgiving: unemployment, loss of transportation,\nhomelessness, loss of government or community services, and poor credit.\nAnd without the ability to accumulate wealth or capture even the smallest\nwindfall for themselves, the poor become poorer, unable to climb out of\nan economic chasm.”).\n\f18 Nos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023\n\ndismiss the case and may even sanction the debtor. 11 U.S.C.\n§ 1307(c); see, e.g., Lisse, 921 F.3d at 639–41 (affirming sanctions\nand dismissal of Chapter 13 petition filed in bad faith to col‐\nlaterally attack state court judgment); In re Bell, 125 F. App’x\n54, 57 (7th Cir. 2005) (affirming dismissal of Chapter 13 peti‐\ntion with prejudice where debtors filed multiple petitions\n“solely to impede the foreclosure sale” of their home).\n B. Exceptions to the Stay\n The City next argues that even if the stay applies, it is ex‐\ncepted under § 362(b)(3) and (b)(4). “We construe the Bank‐\nruptcy Code ‘liberally in favor of the debtor and strictly\nagainst the creditor.’” Village of San Jose v. McWilliams, 284\nF.3d 785, 790 (7th Cir. 2002) (quoting In re Brown, 108 F.3d\n1290, 1292 (10th Cir. 1997)). The automatic stay is “one of the\nfundamental debtor protections provided by the bankruptcy\nlaws.” Midlantic Nat’l Bank v. N.J. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 474 U.S.\n494, 503 (1986) (quoting S. Rep. No. 95–989, at 54 (1978), re‐\nprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5787, 5840). We therefore nar‐\nrowly construe exceptions “to give the automatic stay its in‐\ntended broad application.” In re Grede Foundries, Inc., 651 F.3d\n786, 790 (7th Cir. 2011); see In re Stringer, 847 F.2d 549, 552 (9th\nCir. 1988) (“Congress clearly intended the automatic stay to\nbe quite broad. Exemptions to the stay, on the other hand,\nshould be read narrowly to secure the broad grant of relief to\nthe debtor.” (footnotes omitted)).\n\fNos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023 19\n\n 1. Section 362(b)(3)\n Section 362(b)(3) provides that a Chapter 13 bankruptcy\npetition does not operate as a § 362(a) automatic stay:\n of any act to perfect, or to maintain or con‐\n tinue the perfection of, an interest in prop‐\n erty to the extent that the trustee’s rights and\n powers are subject to such perfection under\n section 546(b) of [the Bankruptcy Code] or to\n the extent that such act is accomplished\n within the period provided under section\n 547(e)(2)(A) of [the Bankruptcy Code].\n11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(3). Section 546(b) limits a trustee’s power to\navoid a nonperfected lien by making that power subject to\nany nonbankruptcy law that “permits perfection of an interest\nin property to be effective against an entity that acquires\nrights in such property before the date of perfection,” or “pro‐\nvides for the maintenance or continuation of perfection of an\ninterest in property to be effective against an entity that ac‐\nquires rights in such property before the date on which action\nis taken to effect such maintenance or continuation.” 11 U.S.C.\n§ 546(b)(1). The classic example of this exception is for a cred‐\nitor who has a grace period for perfecting its interest, such as\nunder the Uniform Commercial Code. See 3 Collier on Bank‐\nruptcy ¶ 362.05 (explaining § 362(b)(3) permits a purchase‐\nmoney secured creditor to retroactively perfect under the\ntwenty‐day grace period provided in Article 9 of the U.C.C.\nand permits the filing of continuations of financing state‐\nments under U.C.C. § 9‐515).\n As the In re Shannon court explained, through §§ 362(b)(3)\nand 546(b), “Congress sought only to prevent a trustee from\n\f20 Nos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023\n\navoiding the lien of a creditor when only the intervening\nbankruptcy stopped the creditor from perfecting or continu‐\ning perfection of its lien.” Thus, the purpose of these sections\nis to prevent creditors from losing their lien rights because of\nthe bankruptcy; they do not permit creditors to retain posses‐\nsion of debtors’ property. Indeed, if the nonbankruptcy law\nrequires a creditor to seize property after the filing of a bank‐\nruptcy petition to perfect or maintain the perfection of a lien,\n§ 546(b)(2) replaces the seizure requirement with the giving\nof notice. See 3 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 362.05. “This assures\nthat the trustee’s right to maintain possession of the property\nwill be unaffected by the creditor’s right to perfect its inter‐\nest.” Id. And the (b)(3) exception permits a creditor to give no‐\ntice under § 546(b)(2) without violating the automatic stay.\n Here, the City argues the Chicago Municipal Code (a non‐\nbankruptcy law) gives it the right to retain possession of a\ndebtor’s vehicle until the debt is paid, thereby creating a pos‐\nsessory lien on the vehicle. See, e.g., M.C.C. §§ 9‐92‐080(f), 9‐\n100‐120(b)–(c). It further asserts it must retain the vehicle to\nmaintain perfection of its lien.\n First, as to perfection, it is commonly understood that an\ninterest in property is perfected when it is valid against other\ncreditors who have an interest in the same property. See Per‐\nfection, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). The City’s con‐\ntinued possession of a debtor’s vehicle is one way to perfect\nits lien because it can demand the amount owed to it from any\nholder of an interest in the vehicle before it gives up posses‐\nsion, be that the debtor or another lienholder asserting its\nright to possession of the vehicle. See M.C.C. § 9‐92‐080(a), (c).\nHowever, possession is not the only way to perfect; the City\ncan also perfect its lien by filing notice of its interest in the\n\fNos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023 21\n\nvehicle, such as with the Secretary of State or the Recorder of\nDeeds. And the Chapter 13 plan, itself, provides a public rec‐\nord of secured liens. See 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(5) (regarding the\nrights of secured creditors related to confirmation of the plan).\nThus, the City does not need to retain possession of the vehi‐\ncle to maintain perfection of its lien.\n Second, despite its arguments to the contrary, the City’s\npossessory lien is not destroyed by its involuntary loss of pos‐\nsession due to forced compliance with the Bankruptcy Code’s\nautomatic stay. The City did not indicate any intent to aban‐\ndon or release its lien, so its possessory lien survives its loss\nof possession to the bankruptcy estate. See In re Estate of Miller,\n556 N.E.2d 568, 572 (Ill. App. Ct. 1990) (“The law respecting\ncommon law retaining liens is that the involuntary relinquish‐\nment of retained property pursuant to a court order does not\nresult in the loss of the lien.”); see also In re Borden, 361 B.R.\n489, 495 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2007) (“[I]nvoluntary loss of posses‐\nsion does not defeat the [] lien.”); Restatement (First) of Secu‐\nrity § 80 cmt. c (1941) (“The lien is a legal interest dependent\nupon possession. Where the lienor voluntarily gives up the\npossession, his lien, at least so far as it is a legal interest, is\ngone. The lienor … does not lose his legal interest if he is de‐\nprived without his consent of his possession.”).3\n\n\n\n 3 The City’s attempt to distinguish between loss of possession due to\ncompliance with a court order versus compliance with the automatic stay\nis in vain. Section 362 provides for the imposition of punitive damages for\nwillful violations of the automatic stay. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(k)(1). This\ndemonstrates that failure to comply with the stay may be punished even\nmore severely than failure to comply with a court order and, correspond‐\ningly, there is no question the stay compels the City to return the vehicles.\n\f22 Nos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023\n\n Because the City does not lose its perfected lien via the in‐\nvoluntary loss of possession of the debtors’ vehicles to the\nbankruptcy estates, § 362(b)(3) does not apply to except it\nfrom the stay. To the extent the City has any doubt about the\ncontinuation of its lien, when it requests relief from the auto‐\nmatic stay and adequate protection, it could also ask the bank‐\nruptcy court to include in its order a notation of the City’s\ncontinuing lien on the property.\n 2. Section 362(b)(4)\n Alternatively, the City looks to § 362(b)(4) to except it from\nthe stay. That section provides that a Chapter 13 bankruptcy\npetition does not operate as a § 362(a) automatic stay:\n of the commencement or continuation of an\n action or proceeding by a governmental\n unit … to enforce such governmental unit’s\n or organization’s police and regulatory\n power, including the enforcement of a judg‐\n ment other than a money judgment, ob‐\n tained in an action or proceeding by the gov‐\n ernmental unit to enforce such governmen‐\n tal unit’s … police or regulatory power.\n11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(4). “This exception has been narrowly con‐\nstrued to apply to the enforcement of state laws affecting\nhealth, welfare, morals and safety, but not to ‘regulatory laws\nthat directly conflict with the control of the res or property by\nthe bankruptcy court.’” In re Cash Currency Exch., Inc., 762 F.2d\n542, 555 (7th Cir. 1985) (quoting In re Missouri, 647 F.2d 768,\n776 (8th Cir. 1981)). The City asserts its impoundment of ve‐\nhicles is an exercise of its police power to enforce traffic regu‐\nlations as a matter of public safety. The debtors respond that\n\fNos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023 23\n\nthe impoundment of vehicles enhances the City’s revenue col‐\nlection rather than protects public safety, and it is therefore an\nenforcement of a money judgment which § 362(b)(4) does not\npermit.\n Courts apply two tests to determine whether a state’s ac‐\ntions fall within the scope of § 362(b)(4)—the pecuniary pur‐\npose test and the public policy test. Chao v. Hosp. Staffing\nServs., Inc., 270 F.3d 374, 385–86 (6th Cir. 2001); In re First All.\nMortg. Co., 263 B.R. 99, 107–08 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2001). Satisfying\neither test is sufficient for the exception to apply. See First All.\nMortg., 263 B.R. at 108; see also 3 Collier on Bankruptcy\n¶ 362.05.\n The pecuniary purpose test requires the court to “look to\nwhat specific acts the government wishes to carry out and de‐\ntermine if such execution would result in an economic ad‐\nvantage over third parties in relation to the debtor’s estate.”\nSolis v. Caro, No. 11‐cv‐6884, 2012 WL 1230824, at *5 (N.D. Ill.\nApr. 12, 2012) (quoting In re Emerald Casino, Inc., No. 03‐cv‐\n05457, 2003 WL 23147946, at *8 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 24, 2003)). “[I]f\nthe focus of the police power is directed at the debtor’s finan‐\ncial obligations rather than the [government’s] health and\nsafety concerns, the automatic stay is applicable.” In re Ellis,\n66 B.R. 821, 825 (N.D. Ill. 1986) (quoting In re Sampson, 17 B.R.\n528, 530 (Bankr. D. Conn. 1982)). Though the City says its im‐\npoundment laws are “designed to further the safety and wel‐\nfare of Chicago residents” with just an “ancillary pecuniary\nbenefit,” we disagree. In retaining possession of the vehicles\nuntil it is paid in full, the City is “attempting to satisfy a debt\noutside the bankruptcy process,” which would give it an ad‐\nvantage over other parties interested in the debtors’ estates.\n\f24 Nos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023\n\nEmerald Casino, 2003 WL 23147946, at *9. The City’s act is fo‐\ncused on the debtor’s financial obligation, not its safety con‐\ncerns, and thus fails the pecuniary purpose test.\n Alternatively, the public policy test considers whether the\nstate action is principally to effectuate public policy or to ad‐\njudicate private rights. Hosp. Staffing Servs., 270 F.3d at 385–\n86; Caro, 2012 WL 1230824, at *4. The public policy the City\nhighlights is enforcing its traffic ordinances against repeat of‐\nfenders “for the safety and convenience of the public.” It ex‐\nplains the traffic ordinance system gradually escalates, begin‐\nning with the issuance of fines then intensifying to immobili‐\nzation and impoundment only after an individual ignores re‐\npeat citations. Without impoundment as a general deterrence,\nthe City argues, it cannot enforce its traffic regulations. See\nEmerald Casino, 2003 WL 23147946, at *6.\n The debtors argue the balance between revenue collection\nand public safety weighs heavily toward the former. Addi‐\ntionally, prior to the 2016 Municipal Code amendment impos‐\ning a possessory lien on impounded vehicles, the City re‐\nleased impounded vehicles to Chapter 13 debtors. When the\nCity recently amended the Code, it did not mention public\nsafety concerns but rather stated the amendment was “in re‐\nsponse to a growing practice of individuals attempting to es‐\ncape financial liability for their immobilized or impounded\nvehicles.” Chi., Ill., Ordinance, Amendment of M.C.C. § 9‐\n100‐120 (July 6, 2017).\n We are persuaded that, on balance, this is an exercise of\nrevenue collection more so than police power. As debtors ob‐\nserve, a not insignificant portion of the City’s annual operat‐\ning fund comes from its collection of parking and traffic tick‐\nets. See City of Chicago, 2019 Budget Overview 29, 192 (2018),\n\fNos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023 25\n\nhttps://chicago.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=6683992&\nGUID=CAEFBC7F‐7C1A‐4B2E‐9F8B‐0CB931B3EE88 (fines,\nforfeitures, and penalties—primarily from parking tickets—\nconstitute approximately nine percent of the 2019 fund).\nMoreover, the kind of violations the City enforces are not tra‐\nditional police power regulations; these fines are for parking\ntickets, failure to display a City tax sticker, and minor moving\nviolations. Even tickets for a suspended license, a seemingly\nmore serious offense, are often the result of unpaid parking\ntickets and are thus not related to public safety. And the City\nimpounds vehicles regardless of what violations the owner\nhas accrued, without distinguishing between more serious vi‐\nolations that could affect public safety versus the mere failure\nto pay for parking. Most notably, the City imposes the mone‐\ntary penalty on the owner of the vehicle, not the driver, which\nsignals a seeming disconnect if the City actually has safety\nconcerns about the offending driver. As the ordinance\namending M.C.C. § 9‐100‐120 demonstrates, the City’s focus\nis on the financial liability of vehicle owners, not on public\nsafety.\n But even if we assume that the adjudication of these viola‐\ntions is the result of the City’s exercise of police and regula‐\ntory power, the City cannot enforce these final determinations\nof liability if they are “money judgment[s]” as the term is used\nin § 362(b)(4). See S. Rep. No. 95‐989, at 52 (1978), reprinted in\n1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5787, 5838 (“Since the assets of the debtor\nare in the possession and control of the bankruptcy court, and\n… constitute a fund out of which all creditors are entitled to\nshare, enforcement by a governmental unit of a money judg‐\nment would give it preferential treatment to the detriment of\nall other creditors.”). A judgment is a “money judgment” that\ncannot be enforced without violating the automatic stay if it\n\f26 Nos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023\n\nrequires payment. 3 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 362.05 (“[T]he\ngovernmental unit still may commence or continue any police\nor regulatory action, including one seeking a money judg‐\nment, but it may enforce only those judgments and orders that do\nnot require payment.” (emphasis added)); First All. Mortg., 263\nB.R. at 107 (same); see also 3 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 362.05\n(“Although a governmental unit may obtain a liability deter‐\nmination, it may not collect on any monetary judgment re‐\nceived.” (emphasis added)); SEC v. Brennan, 230 F.3d 65, 71\n(2d. Cir. 2000) (“[Section] 362(b)(4) permits the entry of a\nmoney judgment against a debtor … [but] anything beyond the\nmere entry of a money judgment against a debtor is prohibited\nby the automatic stay.”).\n The City claims it did not have money judgments “be‐\ncause it did not pursue the additional steps required to turn\nthe citations into money judgments in the circuit court.” We\ndisagree. A “money judgment” is simply an order that iden‐\ntifies “the parties for and against whom judgment is being en‐\ntered” and “a definite and certain designation of the amount …\nowed.” Penn Terra Ltd. v. Dep’t of Envtl. Res., 733 F.2d 267, 275\n(3d Cir. 1984). Prior to impounding a vehicle, the City must\nadministratively adjudicate the debtor’s violations, see M.C.C.\n§ 9‐100‐010, and those adjudications result in a determination\nof final liability—i.e., a judgment. Only after a debtor has two\nor three judgments against it does the Municipal Code au‐\nthorize the City to impound the vehicle until the debtor pays\nthe judgments and related costs and fees. See id. §§ 2‐14‐\n132(c)(1)(A), 9‐92‐080, 9‐100‐120(b). So, without any addi‐\ntional steps, the City had final determinations of liability re‐\nquiring these particular debtors to pay it specific sums.\n\fNos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023 27\n\n The City does not contest that it conditioned the release of\nthe debtors’ vehicles on payment of the amount specified in\nthe final determinations of liability. Cf. id. § 9‐100‐100(b)\n(“Any fine and penalty … remaining unpaid after the notice\nof final determination of liability is sent shall constitute a debt\ndue and owing the city ….”). The continued possession of the\nvehicles is the City’s attempt to short‐circuit the state court\ncollection process and to enforce final judgments requiring\nmonetary payment from the debtors. As such, the City is not\nexcepted from the stay under § 362(b)(4). That the City is not\nexcepted under § 362(b)(4) does not “permit[] debtors to park\nfor free wherever they like, or to drive without a risk of fines\nfor moving violations ….” In re Steenes, 918 F.3d 554, 558 (7th\nCir. 2019). This just means the City needs to satisfy the debts\nowed to it through the bankruptcy process, as do all other\ncreditors.\n III. Conclusion\n For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgments of the\nbankruptcy courts.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: In RE: Robbin L. FULTON, Debtor-Appellee. Appeal Of: City of Chicago in Re: Jason S. Howard, Debtor-Appellee. Appeal Of: City of Chicago in Re: George Peake, Debtor-Appellee. Appeal Of: City of Chicago in Re: Timothy Shannon, Debtor-Appellee. Appeal Of: City of Chicago\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-06-19\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nNo. 18‐2527\\nIN RE: ROBBIN L. FULTON,\\n Debtor‐Appellee.\\nAPPEAL OF: CITY OF CHICAGO\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court\\n for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division‐BK.\\n No. 18‐02860 — Jack B. Schmetterer, Bankruptcy Judge.\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18‐2793\\nIN RE: JASON S. HOWARD,\\n Debtor‐Appellee.\\nAPPEAL OF: CITY OF CHICAGO\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court\\n for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division‐BK.\\n No. 17‐25141 — Jacqueline P. Cox, Bankruptcy Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\f2 Nos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023\\n\\nNo. 18‐2835\\nIN RE: GEORGE PEAKE,\\n Debtor‐Appellee.\\nAPPEAL OF: CITY OF CHICAGO\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court\\n for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division‐BK.\\n No. 18‐16544 — Deborah Lee Thorne, Bankruptcy Judge.\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18‐3023\\nIN RE: TIMOTHY SHANNON,\\n Debtor‐Appellee.\\nAPPEAL OF: CITY OF CHICAGO\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court\\n for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division‐BK.\\n No. 18‐04116 — Carol A. Doyle, Chief Bankruptcy Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED MAY 14, 2019 — DECIDED JUNE 19, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before FLAUM, KANNE, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.\\n FLAUM, Circuit Judge. In this consolidated appeal of four\\nChapter 13 bankruptcies, we consider whether the City of\\nChicago may ignore the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay\\nand continue to hold a debtor’s vehicle until the debtor pays\\nher outstanding parking tickets. Prior to the debtors’ filing for\\nbankruptcy, the City impounded each of their vehicles for\\n\\fNos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023 3\\n\\nfailure to pay multiple traffic fines. After the debtors filed\\ntheir Chapter 13 petitions, the City refused to return their ve‐\\nhicles, claiming it needed to maintain possession to continue\\nperfection of its possessory liens on the vehicles and that it\\nwould only return the vehicles when the debtors paid in full\\ntheir outstanding fines. The bankruptcy courts each held that\\nthe City violated the automatic stay by “exercising control”\\nover property of the bankruptcy estate and that none of the\\nexceptions to the stay applied. The courts ordered the City to\\nreturn debtors’ vehicles and imposed sanctions on the City for\\nviolating the stay.\\n This is not our first time addressing this issue: in Thompson\\nv. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 566 F.3d 699 (7th Cir. 2009),\\nwe held that a creditor must comply with the automatic stay\\nand return a debtor’s vehicle upon her filing of a bankruptcy\\npetition. We decline the City’s request to overrule Thompson.\\nWe therefore affirm the bankruptcy courts’ judgments relying\\non Thompson, and we also agree with the bankruptcy courts\\nthat none of the exceptions to the stay apply.\\n I. Background\\n The Chicago Municipal Code permits creditor‐appellant\\nthe City of Chicago to immobilize and then impound a vehicle\\nif its owner has three or more “final determinations of liabil‐\\nity,” or two final determinations that are over a year old, “for\\nparking, standing, compliance, automated traffic law enforce‐\\nment system, or automated speed enforcement system viola‐\\ntion[s].” Municipal Code of Chicago (“M.C.C.”) § 9‐100‐\\n120(b); see also id. § 9‐80‐240(a) (providing for impoundment\\nof vehicles “operated by a person with a suspended or re‐\\nvoked driver’s license”). The fines for violations of the City’s\\nTraffic Code range from $25 (e.g., parallel parking violation)\\n\\f4 Nos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023\\n\\nto $500 (e.g., parking on a public street without displaying a\\nwheel tax license emblem). Id. § 9‐100‐020(b)–(c). Failure to\\npay the fine within twenty‐five days automatically doubles\\nthe penalty. Id. § 9‐100‐050(e). After a vehicle is impounded,\\nthe owner is further subjected to towing and storage fees, see\\nid. § 9‐64‐250(c), and to the City’s costs and attorney’s fees for\\ncollection activity. Id. §§ 1‐19‐020, 2‐14‐132(c)(1)(A). To re‐\\ntrieve her vehicle, an owner may either pay the fines, towing\\nand storage fees, and collection costs and fees in full, id. § 2‐\\n14‐132(c)(1)(A), or pay the full amount via an installment plan\\nover a period of up to thirty‐six months, provided she makes\\nan initial payment of half the fines and penalties plus all of\\nthe impoundment, towing, and storage charges. Id. § 9‐100‐\\n101(a)(2)–(3).\\n In 2016, the City amended the Code to include: “Any ve‐\\nhicle impounded by the City or its designee shall be subject to\\na possessory lien in favor of the City in the amount required\\nto obtain release of the vehicle.” Id. § 9‐92‐080(f). Based on this\\nprovision, the City began refusing to release impounded ve‐\\nhicles to debtors who had filed Chapter 13 petitions. That is\\njust what occurred in these four cases.\\n A. In re Fulton\\n Debtor‐appellee Robbin Fulton uses a vehicle to commute\\nto work, transport her young daughter to day care, and care\\nfor her elderly parents on weekends. On December 24, 2017,\\nthree weeks after she purchased a 2015 Kia Soul, the City\\ntowed and impounded the vehicle for a prior citation of driv‐\\ning on a suspended license. Fulton filed a Chapter 13 bank‐\\nruptcy petition on January 31, 2018 and filed a plan on Febru‐\\nary 5, treating the City as a general unsecured creditor. The\\nCity filed a general unsecured proof of claim on February 23\\n\\fNos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023 5\\n\\nfor $9,391.20. After the court confirmed Fulton’s plan on\\nMarch 21, she requested the City turn over her vehicle. The\\nCity then amended its proof of claim to add impound fees, for\\na total of $11,831.20, and to assert its status as a secured cred‐\\nitor; it did not return Fulton’s vehicle.\\n On May 2, Fulton filed a motion for sanctions arguing the\\nCity was required to turn over her vehicle pursuant to Thomp‐\\nson and that its failure to do so was sanctionable conduct. The\\nCity countered that Fulton must seek turnover through an ad‐\\nversary proceeding. It asserted it was retaining possession to\\nperfect its possessory lien and was thus excepted from the au‐\\ntomatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(3).\\n On May 25, the bankruptcy court held that the City was\\nrequired to return Fulton’s vehicle under Thompson and that\\nthe City was not excepted from the stay under § 362(b)(3). The\\ncourt ordered the City to turn over Fulton’s vehicle no later\\nthan May 29, imposed a sanction of $100 for every day the\\nCity failed to comply, and sustained Fulton’s objection to the\\nCity’s claim as a secured creditor. The City moved to stay the\\norder in the district court pending appeal; the district court\\ndenied the stay request on September 10. Eventually, the City\\nreturned Fulton’s vehicle. At no point did the City initiate\\nproceedings to protect its rights under § 363(e).\\n B. In re Shannon\\n The City impounded debtor‐appellee Timothy Shannon’s\\n1997 Buick Park Avenue on January 8, 2018 for unpaid park‐\\ning tickets. Shannon filed a Chapter 13 petition on February\\n15. On February 27, the City filed an unsecured proof of claim\\nfor $3,160 in fines dating back to 1999. Shannon, in turn, filed\\na proposed plan that did not include the City as a secured\\n\\f6 Nos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023\\n\\ncreditor, to which the City did not object, and the court con‐\\nfirmed the plan on May 1. When Shannon sought the return\\nof his vehicle, the City amended its proof of claim, adding\\nfines, storage, and towing fees for a total of $5,600, and stated\\nthe claim was secured by its possession of Shannon’s vehicle.\\n Shannon filed a motion for sanctions on June 12, asserting\\nthe stay required the City to turn over his vehicle. The court\\ngranted his motion on September 7; it held the City’s claim\\nwas unsecured because it did not object to the plan that char‐\\nacterized the debt as such. It also determined the City violated\\nthe stay by failing to return Shannon’s vehicle, that the\\n§§ 362(b)(3) and (b)(4) exceptions to the stay did not apply,\\nand that the City further violated § 362(a)(4) and (a)(6) by re‐\\ntaining the vehicle. The court noted the City was free to file a\\nmotion seeking adequate protection of its lien. The City re‐\\nturned Shannon’s car and did not file any such motion.\\n C. In re Peake\\n Debtor‐appellee George Peake relies on his car to travel\\napproximately forty‐five miles from his home to work. The\\nCity impounded his 2007 Lincoln MKZ for unpaid fines on\\nJune 1, 2018. Peake filed a Chapter 13 petition on June 9. In\\nresponse, the City filed a secured proof of claim for $5,393.27\\nand asserted a possessory lien on his vehicle. After the City\\nrefused Peake’s request to return his vehicle, he filed a motion\\nfor sanctions and for turnover. On August 15, the bankruptcy\\ncourt granted the motion; it held that neither § 362(b)(3) nor\\n(b)(4) applied, so the City’s retention of Peake’s vehicle vio‐\\nlated the stay, and it ordered the City to release his vehicle\\nimmediately. The City filed a motion to stay the order pend‐\\ning appeal, which the court denied on August 22. The same\\nday, Peake filed a motion for civil contempt based on the\\n\\fNos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023 7\\n\\nCity’s refusal to release his vehicle. The court granted the mo‐\\ntion and entered an order requiring the City to pay monetary\\nsanctions—$100 per day from August 17 through August 22\\nand $500 per day thereafter until the City returned his vehicle.\\nThe City filed an emergency motion for a stay pending appeal\\nin our Court, which we denied. Finally, the City released\\nPeake’s vehicle. At no point did the City file a motion to pro‐\\ntect its interest in the vehicle.\\n D. In re Howard\\n The City immobilized debtor‐appellee Jason Howard’s ve‐\\nhicle on August 9, 2017 and impounded it soon after. Howard\\nfiled a Chapter 13 petition on August 22. The City filed a se‐\\ncured proof of claim on August 23 for $17,110.80. The court\\nconfirmed Howard’s plan on October 16, which included a\\nnonpriority unsecured debt of $13,000 owed to the City for\\nparking tickets. Though the Code did not impose an auto‐\\nmatic stay when Howard filed his petition due to his prior\\ndismissed bankruptcy petitions, see 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(4)(A),\\nthe court granted Howard’s motion to impose a stay when it\\nconfirmed his plan on October 16. The City did not object to\\nits treatment as unsecured under the plan and did not appeal\\nthe confirmation order; rather, it simply refused to release\\nHoward’s vehicle unless he paid 100% of its claim.\\n On January 22, 2018, the court issued a rule to show cause\\nto the City why it should not be sanctioned for refusing to re‐\\nlease Howard’s vehicle in accordance with Thompson. The\\ncourt rejected the City’s argument that it was excepted from\\nthe stay under § 362(b)(3) and, on April 16, 2018, ordered\\nsanctions of $50 per day beginning August 22, 2017 for the\\nCity’s violation of the stay.\\n\\f8 Nos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023\\n\\n After the City filed its opening appellate brief, Howard\\nfiled notice of his intention not to participate in the appeal.\\nHis counsel explained Howard’s bankruptcy case had been\\ndismissed and the City disposed of his vehicle. He has since\\nfiled a new bankruptcy case to address his parking tickets but\\nhas abandoned interest in the vehicle that was the subject of\\nthe relevant Chapter 13 petition in the bankruptcy court be‐\\nlow. However, “issues related to an alleged violation of the\\nautomatic stay” are not mooted by dismissal of a bankruptcy\\npetition, Denby‐Peterson v. Nu2u Auto World, 595 B.R. 184, 188\\n(D.N.J. 2018); a court “must have the power to compensate\\nvictims of violations of the automatic stay and punish the vi‐\\nolators, even after the conclusion of the underlying bank‐\\nruptcy case.” In re Johnson, 575 F.3d 1079, 1083 (10th Cir. 2009)\\n(citing In re Davis, 177 B.R. 907, 911–12 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1995)).\\n * * *\\n In each of these four cases, the City appealed the bank‐\\nruptcy courts’ orders finding the City violated the stay. These\\ncases have been consolidated for appeal.\\n II. Discussion\\n The main question before us is whether the City is obli‐\\ngated to return a debtor’s vehicle upon her filing of a Chapter\\n13 bankruptcy petition, or whether the City is entitled to hold\\nthe debtor’s vehicle until she pays the fines and costs or until\\nshe obtains a court order requiring the City to turn over the\\nvehicle. We review a bankruptcy court’s factual findings for\\nclear error and conclusions of law de novo. In re Jepson, 816\\nF.3d 942, 945 (7th Cir. 2016).\\n\\fNos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023 9\\n\\n A. The Automatic Stay\\n Section 362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that a\\nChapter 13 bankruptcy petition “operates as a stay, applicable\\nto all entities, of … any act to obtain possession of property of\\nthe estate or of property from the estate or to exercise control\\nover property of the estate.” 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3) (emphasis\\nadded). We applied this provision to a very similar factual sit‐\\nuation in Thompson v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. There, a\\ncreditor seized a debtor’s car after he defaulted on payments.\\n566 F.3d at 700. The debtor filed a Chapter 13 petition and at‐\\ntempted to retrieve his car, but the creditor refused. Id. We\\nconsidered two issues relating to § 362(a)(3): whether the\\ncreditor “exercised control” of property of the bankruptcy es‐\\ntate by failing to return the vehicle after the debtor filed for\\nbankruptcy, and whether the creditor was required to return\\nthe vehicle prior to a court determination establishing the\\ndebtor could provide adequate protection for the creditor’s\\ninterest in the vehicle. Id. at 701.\\n 1. “Exercise Control”\\n First, we observed in Thompson there was no debate the\\ndebtor has an equitable interest in his vehicle, and “as such, it\\nis property of his bankruptcy estate.” 566 F.3d at 701 (citing\\nUnited States v. Whiting Pools, Inc., 462 U.S. 198, 203 (1983)); see\\n5 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 541.01 (16th ed. 2019) (“Congress’s\\nintent to define property of the estate in the broadest possible\\nsense is evident from the language of the statute which, in sec‐\\ntion 541(a)(1), initially defines the scope of estate property to\\nbe all legal or equitable interests of the debtor in property as\\nof the commencement of the case, wherever located and by\\nwhomever held.”). We then rejected the creditor’s argument\\n\\f10 Nos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023\\n\\nthat passively holding the asset did not satisfy the Code’s def‐\\ninition of exercising control: “Holding onto an asset, refusing\\nto return it, and otherwise prohibiting a debtor’s beneficial\\nuse of an asset all fit within th[e] definition, as well as within\\nthe commonsense meaning of the word.” Thompson, 566 F.3d\\nat 702. As we explained, limiting the reach of “exercising con‐\\ntrol” to “selling or otherwise destroying the asset,” as the\\ncreditor proposed, did not fit with bankruptcy’s purpose:\\n“The primary goal of reorganization bankruptcy is to group\\nall of the debtor’s property together in his estate such that he\\nmay rehabilitate his credit and pay off his debts; this neces‐\\nsarily extends to all property, even property lawfully seized\\npre‐petition.” Id. (citing Whiting Pools, 462 U.S. at 203–04).\\n Additionally, Congress amended § 362(a)(3) in 1984 to\\nprohibit conduct that “exercise[d] control” over estate assets.\\nWe determined this addition suggested congressional intent\\nto make the stay more inclusive by including conduct of\\n“creditors who seized an asset pre‐petition.” Id.; see In re\\nJavens, 107 F.3d 359, 368 (6th Cir. 1997) (“The fact that ‘to ob‐\\ntain possession’ was amended to ‘to obtain possession … or\\nto exercise control’ hints [] that this kind of ‘control’ might be\\na broadening of the concept of possession … It could also\\nhave been intended to make clear that [§ 362](a)(3) applied to\\nproperty of the estate that was not in the possession of the\\ndebtor.” (first alteration in original)); In re Del Mission Ltd., 98\\nF.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir. 1996) (The 1984 amendment\\n“broaden[ed] the scope of § 362(a)(3) to proscribe the mere\\nknowing retention of estate property.”). We therefore held\\nthat in retaining possession of the car, the creditor violated the\\nautomatic stay in § 362(a)(3). Thompson, 566 F.3d at 703.\\n\\fNos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023 11\\n\\n 2. Compulsory Turnover\\n Next, we concluded § 362(a)(3) becomes effective immedi‐\\nately upon filing the petition and is not dependent on the\\ndebtor first bringing a turnover action. Id. at 707–08. In so con‐\\ncluding, we relied on a plain reading of §§ 363(e) and 542(a)\\nand the Supreme Court’s decision in Whiting Pools.\\n Section 363(e) provides:\\n [O]n request of an entity that has an interest in\\n property used, sold, or leased, or proposed to be\\n used, sold, or leased … by the trustee, the court,\\n with or without a hearing, shall prohibit or con‐\\n dition such use, sale, or lease as is necessary to\\n provide adequate protection of such interest.\\n11 U.S.C. § 363(e). The creditor acknowledged, and we\\nagreed, that it has the burden of requesting protection of its\\ninterest in the asset under § 363(e). “However, if a creditor is\\nallowed to retain possession, then this burden is rendered\\nmeaningless—a creditor has no incentive to seek protection of\\nan asset of which it already has possession.” Thompson, 566\\nF.3d at 704. For § 363(e) to have meaning then, the asset must\\nbe returned to the estate prior to the creditor seeking protec‐\\ntion of its interest. Id.; cf. In re Sharon, 234 B.R. 676, 684 (B.A.P.\\n6th Cir. 1999) (“[T]he Bankruptcy Code does not elevate [the\\ncreditor’s] adequate protection right above the Chapter 13\\ndebtor’s right to possession and use of a car.”).\\n Moreover, § 542(a) “indicates that turnover of a seized as‐\\nset is compulsory.” Thompson, 566 F.3d at 704. Section 542(a)\\nrequires that a creditor in possession of property of the estate\\n“shall deliver to the trustee, and account for, such property or\\n\\f12 Nos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023\\n\\nthe value of such property, unless such property is of incon‐\\nsequential value or benefit to the estate.” 11 U.S.C. § 542(a)\\n(emphasis added). We observed that a majority of courts had\\nfound § 542(a) worked in conjunction with § 362(a) “to draw\\nback into the estate a right of possession that is claimed by a\\nlien creditor pursuant to a pre‐petition seizure; the Code then\\nsubstitutes ‘adequate protection’ for possession as one of the\\nlien creditor’s rights in the bankruptcy case.” Thompson, 566\\nF.3d at 704 (quoting Sharon, 234 B.R. at 683). Because “[t]he\\nright of possession is incident to the automatic stay,” id., the\\ncreditor must first return the asset to the bankruptcy estate.\\nOnly then is “the bankruptcy court [] empowered to condition\\nthe right of the estate to keep possession of the asset on the\\nprovision of certain specified adequate protections to the\\ncreditor.” Id.; see also 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) (“On request of a\\nparty in interest and after notice and a hearing, the court shall\\ngrant relief from the stay provided under [§ 362](a) … for\\ncause, including the lack of adequate protection of an interest\\nin property ….”). The Supreme Court indicated as much in\\nWhiting Pools when it explained that a “creditor with a se‐\\ncured interest in property included in the estate must look to\\n[§ 363(e)] for protection, rather than to the nonbankruptcy remedy\\nof possession.” 462 U.S. at 204 (emphasis added).\\n 3. Thompson Controls\\n Applying Thompson to the facts before us, we conclude, as\\neach bankruptcy court did, that the City violated the auto‐\\nmatic stay pursuant to § 362(a)(3) by retaining possession of\\nthe debtors’ vehicles after they declared bankruptcy. See In re\\nShannon, 18‐bk‐04116, Mem. Op. at 11 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Sept. 7,\\n2018), ECF No. 64 (“Thompson [] requires any secured creditor\\nin possession of a debtor’s vehicle to return it immediately\\n\\fNos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023 13\\n\\nand seek adequate protection ….”); In re Peake, 18‐bk‐16544,\\nMem. Op. at 3 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Aug. 15, 2018), ECF No. 40\\n(“[T]he City’s conduct in retaining possession of the vehicle\\nviolates [§] 362(a)(3) as that section has been interpreted … in\\nThompson ….”); In re Fulton, 18‐bk‐02860, Mem. Op. at 2\\n(Bankr. N.D. Ill. May 25, 2018), ECF No. 39 (“[T]he City is cir‐\\ncumventing entirely the procedural burden imposed on it by\\nThompson and the protections provided to debtors by the au‐\\ntomatic stay.”); In re Howard, 17‐bk‐25141, Mem. Op. at 10\\n(Bankr. N.D. Ill. Apr. 16, 2018), ECF. No. 63 (“[Section 362(a)]\\ndoes not authorize continued possession of impounded vehi‐\\ncles in contravention of the Thompson ruling.”). The City was\\nrequired to return debtors’ vehicles and seek protection\\nwithin the framework of the Bankruptcy Code rather than\\nthrough “the nonbankruptcy remedy of possession.” Whiting\\nPools, 462 U.S. at 204.\\n The City acknowledges Thompson controls but asks us to\\noverrule Thompson for three reasons: (1) property impounded\\nprior to bankruptcy is not property of the bankruptcy estate\\nbecause the debtors did not have a possessory interest in their\\nvehicles at the time of filing; (2) the stay requires creditors to\\nmaintain the status quo and not take any action, such as re‐\\nturning property to the debtor, so the onus is on the debtor to\\nmove for a turnover action to retrieve her vehicle; and (3) the\\nplain language of § 362(a)(3) requires an “act” to exercise con‐\\ntrol, and passive retention of the vehicle is not an “act.”\\n We decline the City’s request; Thompson considered and\\nrejected these arguments. More fundamentally, the City’s ar‐\\nguments ignore the purpose of bankruptcy—“to allow the\\ndebtor to regain his financial foothold and repay his credi‐\\n\\f14 Nos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023\\n\\ntors.” Thompson, 566 F.3d at 706; see also 5 Collier on Bank‐\\nruptcy ¶ 541.01 (“[The] central aggregation and protection of\\nproperty [] promote[s] the fundamental purposes of the Bank‐\\nruptcy Code: the breathing room given to a debtor that at‐\\ntempts to make a fresh start, and the equality of distribution\\nof assets among similarly situated creditors according to the\\npriorities set forth within the Code.”). To effectively do so, a\\ndebtor must be able to use his assets “while the court works\\nwith both debtor and creditors to establish a rehabilitation\\nand repayment plan.” Thompson, 566 F.3d at 707; see also Whit‐\\ning Pools, 462 U.S. at 203 (“[T]o facilitate the rehabilitation of\\nthe debtor’s business, all the debtor’s property must be in‐\\ncluded in the reorganization estate.”). This is why § 542 com‐\\npels the return of property to the estate, including “property\\nin which the debtor did not have a possessory interest at the\\ntime the bankruptcy proceedings commenced.” Whiting Pools,\\n462 U.S. at 205; see In re Weber, 719 F.3d 72, 79 (2d Cir. 2013)\\n(“Whiting Pools teaches that the filing of a petition will gener‐\\nally transform a debtor’s equitable interest into a bankruptcy\\nestate’s possessory right in the vehicle.”). Thus, contrary to\\nthe City’s argument, the status quo in bankruptcy is the return\\nof the debtor’s property to the estate. In refusing to return the\\nvehicles to their respective estates, the City was not passively\\nabiding by the bankruptcy rules but actively resisting § 542(a)\\nto exercise control over debtors’ vehicles.\\n What’s more, the position we took in Thompson brought\\nour Circuit in line with the majority rule, held by the Second,\\nEighth, and Ninth Circuits. See Weber, 719 F.3d 72; Del Mission\\n98 F.3d 1147; In re Knaus, 889 F.2d 773 (8th Cir. 1989). Alt‐\\nhough the Tenth Circuit recently adopted the City’s view, see\\nIn re Cowen, 849 F.3d 943 (10th Cir. 2017), that position is still\\n\\fNos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023 15\\n\\nthe minority rule. Our reasoning in Thompson continues to re‐\\nflect the majority position and we believe it is the appropriate\\nreading of the bankruptcy statutes. At bottom, the City wants\\nto maintain possession of the vehicles not because it wants the\\nvehicles but to put pressure on the debtors to pay their tickets.\\nThat is precisely what the stay is intended to prevent.1\\n The City, though, pleads necessity; it claims that, without\\nretaining possession, it is helpless to prevent the loss or de‐\\nstruction of the vehicles. It did not attempt in any of these\\ncases, however, to seek adequate protection of its interests\\nthrough the methods available under the Bankruptcy Code,\\nand at oral argument, the City asserted it did not have “the\\nopportunity” to request such protection before the bank‐\\nruptcy courts ordered it to return the vehicles. The record be‐\\nlies this statement. In each case, the parties engaged in motion\\npractice, often over the course of months, before the courts\\nheld the City to be in violation of the stay. At any point the\\nCity could have sought adequate protection of its interests,\\nbut it chose not to avail itself of the Code’s available proce‐\\ndures. See, e.g., 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) (court may relieve credi‐\\ntor from the stay if debtor cannot adequately protect credi‐\\ntor’s interest in the property); id. § 362(f) (court may relieve\\ncreditor from stay “as is necessary to prevent irreparable\\ndamage to the interest of an entity in property”); id. § 363(e)\\n(creditor may request court to place limits or conditions on\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 1 The In re Shannon court further found that § 362(a)(4) and (a)(6) also\\nprohibit the City’s continued retention of debtors’ vehicles. Because the\\nCity is bound by the stay under § 362(a)(3), we do not reach the applica‐\\nbility of the additional stay provisions.\\n\\f16 Nos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023\\n\\ntrustee’s power to use, sell, or lease property to protect credi‐\\ntor’s interest).\\n We recognize that once the City complies with the auto‐\\nmatic stay and immediately turns over vehicles, it will need\\nto seek protection on an expedited basis. Though we leave it\\nto the City and the bankruptcy courts to fashion the precise\\nprocedure for doing so, we note the following: The City will\\nhave notice of the bankruptcy petition when the debtor re‐\\nquests her vehicle, if not sooner. At that time, the City may\\nimmediately file an emergency motion for adequate protec‐\\ntion of its interest in a debtor’s vehicle, which may be heard\\nwithin a day or so, and the City can even file such motions ex\\nparte if necessary. See id. § 363(e); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 4001(a)(2);\\nsee also 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1), (f); Bankr. N.D. Ill. R. 9013‐\\n9(B)(9)(d) (motion for relief from stay under § 362 where mo‐\\nvant alleges security interest in vehicle “ordinarily [] granted\\nwithout hearing”). It will be the rare occasion where a single\\nday’s delay will have lost the City the value of its security.\\nRegardless, the Code is clear that it is the creditor’s obligation\\nto come to court and ask for protection, not, as the City advo‐\\ncates, the debtor’s obligation to file an adversary proceeding\\nagainst every creditor holding her property at the time she\\nfiles for bankruptcy. Cf. In re Lisse, 921 F.3d 629, 639 (7th Cir.\\n2019) (“The basic premise [of Chapter 13] is to facilitate the\\ndebtor’s ability to pay his creditors ….”).\\n The City’s argument that it will be overburdened with re‐\\nsponding to Chapter 13 petitions is ultimately unavailing; any\\nburden is a consequence of the Bankruptcy Code’s focus on\\nprotecting debtors and on preserving property of the estate\\nfor the benefit of all creditors. It perhaps also reflects the im‐\\nportance of vehicles to residents’ everyday lives, particularly\\n\\fNos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023 17\\n\\nwhere residents need their vehicles to commute to work and\\nearn an income in order to eventually pay off their fines and\\nother debts.2 It is not a reason to permit the City to ignore the\\nautomatic stay and hold captive property of the estate, in con‐\\ntravention of the Bankruptcy Code.\\n Furthermore, if a debtor files a bankruptcy petition in bad\\nfaith and immediately dismisses her case, as the City claims\\nmany debtors do solely to retrieve their impounded vehicles,\\nthe City has recourse: it may file a bad faith motion against\\nthe debtor. If the court finds bad faith, it may immediately\\n\\n\\n 2 We additionally note that the “flood” of Chapter 13 filings is evi‐\\ndence of the disproportionate effect of the City’s traffic fines and fees on\\nits low‐income residents, an issue that is not unique to Chicago. See, e.g.,\\nMaura Ewing, Should States Charge Low‐Income Residents Less for Traffic\\nTickets?, The Atlantic (May 13, 2017), https://www.theatlantic.com/poli‐\\ntics/archive/2017/05/traffic‐debt‐california‐brown/526491/ (California);\\nSam Sanders, Study Finds The Poor Subject To Unfair Fines, Driverʹs License\\nSuspensions, NPR: The Two‐Way (Apr. 9, 2015), https://www.npr.org/sec‐\\ntions/thetwo‐way/2015/04/09/398576196/study‐find‐the‐poor‐subject‐to‐\\nunfair‐fines‐drivers‐license‐suspensions (Missouri and California);\\nMelissa Sanchez & Sandhya Kambhampati, How Chicago Ticket Debt Sends\\nBlack Motorists Into Bankruptcy, ProPublica Illinois (Feb. 27, 2018),\\nhttps://features.propublica.org/driven‐into‐debt/chicago‐ticket‐debt‐\\nbankruptcy/ (“[African‐American] neighborhoods account for 40 percent\\nof all debt, though they account for only 22 percent of all the tickets issued\\nin the city over the past decade—suggesting how the debt burdens the\\npoor.”); see also Torie Atkinson, Note, A Fine Scheme: How Municipal Fines\\nBecome Crushing Debt in the Shadow of the New Debtorsʹ Prisons, 51 Harv.\\nC.R.‐C.L. L. Rev. 189, 217–22 (2016) (“The consequences of fines and fees\\ncan be dramatic and unforgiving: unemployment, loss of transportation,\\nhomelessness, loss of government or community services, and poor credit.\\nAnd without the ability to accumulate wealth or capture even the smallest\\nwindfall for themselves, the poor become poorer, unable to climb out of\\nan economic chasm.”).\\n\\f18 Nos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023\\n\\ndismiss the case and may even sanction the debtor. 11 U.S.C.\\n§ 1307(c); see, e.g., Lisse, 921 F.3d at 639–41 (affirming sanctions\\nand dismissal of Chapter 13 petition filed in bad faith to col‐\\nlaterally attack state court judgment); In re Bell, 125 F. App’x\\n54, 57 (7th Cir. 2005) (affirming dismissal of Chapter 13 peti‐\\ntion with prejudice where debtors filed multiple petitions\\n“solely to impede the foreclosure sale” of their home).\\n B. Exceptions to the Stay\\n The City next argues that even if the stay applies, it is ex‐\\ncepted under § 362(b)(3) and (b)(4). “We construe the Bank‐\\nruptcy Code ‘liberally in favor of the debtor and strictly\\nagainst the creditor.’” Village of San Jose v. McWilliams, 284\\nF.3d 785, 790 (7th Cir. 2002) (quoting In re Brown, 108 F.3d\\n1290, 1292 (10th Cir. 1997)). The automatic stay is “one of the\\nfundamental debtor protections provided by the bankruptcy\\nlaws.” Midlantic Nat’l Bank v. N.J. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 474 U.S.\\n494, 503 (1986) (quoting S. Rep. No. 95–989, at 54 (1978), re‐\\nprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5787, 5840). We therefore nar‐\\nrowly construe exceptions “to give the automatic stay its in‐\\ntended broad application.” In re Grede Foundries, Inc., 651 F.3d\\n786, 790 (7th Cir. 2011); see In re Stringer, 847 F.2d 549, 552 (9th\\nCir. 1988) (“Congress clearly intended the automatic stay to\\nbe quite broad. Exemptions to the stay, on the other hand,\\nshould be read narrowly to secure the broad grant of relief to\\nthe debtor.” (footnotes omitted)).\\n\\fNos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023 19\\n\\n 1. Section 362(b)(3)\\n Section 362(b)(3) provides that a Chapter 13 bankruptcy\\npetition does not operate as a § 362(a) automatic stay:\\n of any act to perfect, or to maintain or con‐\\n tinue the perfection of, an interest in prop‐\\n erty to the extent that the trustee’s rights and\\n powers are subject to such perfection under\\n section 546(b) of [the Bankruptcy Code] or to\\n the extent that such act is accomplished\\n within the period provided under section\\n 547(e)(2)(A) of [the Bankruptcy Code].\\n11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(3). Section 546(b) limits a trustee’s power to\\navoid a nonperfected lien by making that power subject to\\nany nonbankruptcy law that “permits perfection of an interest\\nin property to be effective against an entity that acquires\\nrights in such property before the date of perfection,” or “pro‐\\nvides for the maintenance or continuation of perfection of an\\ninterest in property to be effective against an entity that ac‐\\nquires rights in such property before the date on which action\\nis taken to effect such maintenance or continuation.” 11 U.S.C.\\n§ 546(b)(1). The classic example of this exception is for a cred‐\\nitor who has a grace period for perfecting its interest, such as\\nunder the Uniform Commercial Code. See 3 Collier on Bank‐\\nruptcy ¶ 362.05 (explaining § 362(b)(3) permits a purchase‐\\nmoney secured creditor to retroactively perfect under the\\ntwenty‐day grace period provided in Article 9 of the U.C.C.\\nand permits the filing of continuations of financing state‐\\nments under U.C.C. § 9‐515).\\n As the In re Shannon court explained, through §§ 362(b)(3)\\nand 546(b), “Congress sought only to prevent a trustee from\\n\\f20 Nos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023\\n\\navoiding the lien of a creditor when only the intervening\\nbankruptcy stopped the creditor from perfecting or continu‐\\ning perfection of its lien.” Thus, the purpose of these sections\\nis to prevent creditors from losing their lien rights because of\\nthe bankruptcy; they do not permit creditors to retain posses‐\\nsion of debtors’ property. Indeed, if the nonbankruptcy law\\nrequires a creditor to seize property after the filing of a bank‐\\nruptcy petition to perfect or maintain the perfection of a lien,\\n§ 546(b)(2) replaces the seizure requirement with the giving\\nof notice. See 3 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 362.05. “This assures\\nthat the trustee’s right to maintain possession of the property\\nwill be unaffected by the creditor’s right to perfect its inter‐\\nest.” Id. And the (b)(3) exception permits a creditor to give no‐\\ntice under § 546(b)(2) without violating the automatic stay.\\n Here, the City argues the Chicago Municipal Code (a non‐\\nbankruptcy law) gives it the right to retain possession of a\\ndebtor’s vehicle until the debt is paid, thereby creating a pos‐\\nsessory lien on the vehicle. See, e.g., M.C.C. §§ 9‐92‐080(f), 9‐\\n100‐120(b)–(c). It further asserts it must retain the vehicle to\\nmaintain perfection of its lien.\\n First, as to perfection, it is commonly understood that an\\ninterest in property is perfected when it is valid against other\\ncreditors who have an interest in the same property. See Per‐\\nfection, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). The City’s con‐\\ntinued possession of a debtor’s vehicle is one way to perfect\\nits lien because it can demand the amount owed to it from any\\nholder of an interest in the vehicle before it gives up posses‐\\nsion, be that the debtor or another lienholder asserting its\\nright to possession of the vehicle. See M.C.C. § 9‐92‐080(a), (c).\\nHowever, possession is not the only way to perfect; the City\\ncan also perfect its lien by filing notice of its interest in the\\n\\fNos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023 21\\n\\nvehicle, such as with the Secretary of State or the Recorder of\\nDeeds. And the Chapter 13 plan, itself, provides a public rec‐\\nord of secured liens. See 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(5) (regarding the\\nrights of secured creditors related to confirmation of the plan).\\nThus, the City does not need to retain possession of the vehi‐\\ncle to maintain perfection of its lien.\\n Second, despite its arguments to the contrary, the City’s\\npossessory lien is not destroyed by its involuntary loss of pos‐\\nsession due to forced compliance with the Bankruptcy Code’s\\nautomatic stay. The City did not indicate any intent to aban‐\\ndon or release its lien, so its possessory lien survives its loss\\nof possession to the bankruptcy estate. See In re Estate of Miller,\\n556 N.E.2d 568, 572 (Ill. App. Ct. 1990) (“The law respecting\\ncommon law retaining liens is that the involuntary relinquish‐\\nment of retained property pursuant to a court order does not\\nresult in the loss of the lien.”); see also In re Borden, 361 B.R.\\n489, 495 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2007) (“[I]nvoluntary loss of posses‐\\nsion does not defeat the [] lien.”); Restatement (First) of Secu‐\\nrity § 80 cmt. c (1941) (“The lien is a legal interest dependent\\nupon possession. Where the lienor voluntarily gives up the\\npossession, his lien, at least so far as it is a legal interest, is\\ngone. The lienor … does not lose his legal interest if he is de‐\\nprived without his consent of his possession.”).3\\n\\n\\n\\n 3 The City’s attempt to distinguish between loss of possession due to\\ncompliance with a court order versus compliance with the automatic stay\\nis in vain. Section 362 provides for the imposition of punitive damages for\\nwillful violations of the automatic stay. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(k)(1). This\\ndemonstrates that failure to comply with the stay may be punished even\\nmore severely than failure to comply with a court order and, correspond‐\\ningly, there is no question the stay compels the City to return the vehicles.\\n\\f22 Nos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023\\n\\n Because the City does not lose its perfected lien via the in‐\\nvoluntary loss of possession of the debtors’ vehicles to the\\nbankruptcy estates, § 362(b)(3) does not apply to except it\\nfrom the stay. To the extent the City has any doubt about the\\ncontinuation of its lien, when it requests relief from the auto‐\\nmatic stay and adequate protection, it could also ask the bank‐\\nruptcy court to include in its order a notation of the City’s\\ncontinuing lien on the property.\\n 2. Section 362(b)(4)\\n Alternatively, the City looks to § 362(b)(4) to except it from\\nthe stay. That section provides that a Chapter 13 bankruptcy\\npetition does not operate as a § 362(a) automatic stay:\\n of the commencement or continuation of an\\n action or proceeding by a governmental\\n unit … to enforce such governmental unit’s\\n or organization’s police and regulatory\\n power, including the enforcement of a judg‐\\n ment other than a money judgment, ob‐\\n tained in an action or proceeding by the gov‐\\n ernmental unit to enforce such governmen‐\\n tal unit’s … police or regulatory power.\\n11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(4). “This exception has been narrowly con‐\\nstrued to apply to the enforcement of state laws affecting\\nhealth, welfare, morals and safety, but not to ‘regulatory laws\\nthat directly conflict with the control of the res or property by\\nthe bankruptcy court.’” In re Cash Currency Exch., Inc., 762 F.2d\\n542, 555 (7th Cir. 1985) (quoting In re Missouri, 647 F.2d 768,\\n776 (8th Cir. 1981)). The City asserts its impoundment of ve‐\\nhicles is an exercise of its police power to enforce traffic regu‐\\nlations as a matter of public safety. The debtors respond that\\n\\fNos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023 23\\n\\nthe impoundment of vehicles enhances the City’s revenue col‐\\nlection rather than protects public safety, and it is therefore an\\nenforcement of a money judgment which § 362(b)(4) does not\\npermit.\\n Courts apply two tests to determine whether a state’s ac‐\\ntions fall within the scope of § 362(b)(4)—the pecuniary pur‐\\npose test and the public policy test. Chao v. Hosp. Staffing\\nServs., Inc., 270 F.3d 374, 385–86 (6th Cir. 2001); In re First All.\\nMortg. Co., 263 B.R. 99, 107–08 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2001). Satisfying\\neither test is sufficient for the exception to apply. See First All.\\nMortg., 263 B.R. at 108; see also 3 Collier on Bankruptcy\\n¶ 362.05.\\n The pecuniary purpose test requires the court to “look to\\nwhat specific acts the government wishes to carry out and de‐\\ntermine if such execution would result in an economic ad‐\\nvantage over third parties in relation to the debtor’s estate.”\\nSolis v. Caro, No. 11‐cv‐6884, 2012 WL 1230824, at *5 (N.D. Ill.\\nApr. 12, 2012) (quoting In re Emerald Casino, Inc., No. 03‐cv‐\\n05457, 2003 WL 23147946, at *8 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 24, 2003)). “[I]f\\nthe focus of the police power is directed at the debtor’s finan‐\\ncial obligations rather than the [government’s] health and\\nsafety concerns, the automatic stay is applicable.” In re Ellis,\\n66 B.R. 821, 825 (N.D. Ill. 1986) (quoting In re Sampson, 17 B.R.\\n528, 530 (Bankr. D. Conn. 1982)). Though the City says its im‐\\npoundment laws are “designed to further the safety and wel‐\\nfare of Chicago residents” with just an “ancillary pecuniary\\nbenefit,” we disagree. In retaining possession of the vehicles\\nuntil it is paid in full, the City is “attempting to satisfy a debt\\noutside the bankruptcy process,” which would give it an ad‐\\nvantage over other parties interested in the debtors’ estates.\\n\\f24 Nos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023\\n\\nEmerald Casino, 2003 WL 23147946, at *9. The City’s act is fo‐\\ncused on the debtor’s financial obligation, not its safety con‐\\ncerns, and thus fails the pecuniary purpose test.\\n Alternatively, the public policy test considers whether the\\nstate action is principally to effectuate public policy or to ad‐\\njudicate private rights. Hosp. Staffing Servs., 270 F.3d at 385–\\n86; Caro, 2012 WL 1230824, at *4. The public policy the City\\nhighlights is enforcing its traffic ordinances against repeat of‐\\nfenders “for the safety and convenience of the public.” It ex‐\\nplains the traffic ordinance system gradually escalates, begin‐\\nning with the issuance of fines then intensifying to immobili‐\\nzation and impoundment only after an individual ignores re‐\\npeat citations. Without impoundment as a general deterrence,\\nthe City argues, it cannot enforce its traffic regulations. See\\nEmerald Casino, 2003 WL 23147946, at *6.\\n The debtors argue the balance between revenue collection\\nand public safety weighs heavily toward the former. Addi‐\\ntionally, prior to the 2016 Municipal Code amendment impos‐\\ning a possessory lien on impounded vehicles, the City re‐\\nleased impounded vehicles to Chapter 13 debtors. When the\\nCity recently amended the Code, it did not mention public\\nsafety concerns but rather stated the amendment was “in re‐\\nsponse to a growing practice of individuals attempting to es‐\\ncape financial liability for their immobilized or impounded\\nvehicles.” Chi., Ill., Ordinance, Amendment of M.C.C. § 9‐\\n100‐120 (July 6, 2017).\\n We are persuaded that, on balance, this is an exercise of\\nrevenue collection more so than police power. As debtors ob‐\\nserve, a not insignificant portion of the City’s annual operat‐\\ning fund comes from its collection of parking and traffic tick‐\\nets. See City of Chicago, 2019 Budget Overview 29, 192 (2018),\\n\\fNos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023 25\\n\\nhttps://chicago.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=6683992&\\nGUID=CAEFBC7F‐7C1A‐4B2E‐9F8B‐0CB931B3EE88 (fines,\\nforfeitures, and penalties—primarily from parking tickets—\\nconstitute approximately nine percent of the 2019 fund).\\nMoreover, the kind of violations the City enforces are not tra‐\\nditional police power regulations; these fines are for parking\\ntickets, failure to display a City tax sticker, and minor moving\\nviolations. Even tickets for a suspended license, a seemingly\\nmore serious offense, are often the result of unpaid parking\\ntickets and are thus not related to public safety. And the City\\nimpounds vehicles regardless of what violations the owner\\nhas accrued, without distinguishing between more serious vi‐\\nolations that could affect public safety versus the mere failure\\nto pay for parking. Most notably, the City imposes the mone‐\\ntary penalty on the owner of the vehicle, not the driver, which\\nsignals a seeming disconnect if the City actually has safety\\nconcerns about the offending driver. As the ordinance\\namending M.C.C. § 9‐100‐120 demonstrates, the City’s focus\\nis on the financial liability of vehicle owners, not on public\\nsafety.\\n But even if we assume that the adjudication of these viola‐\\ntions is the result of the City’s exercise of police and regula‐\\ntory power, the City cannot enforce these final determinations\\nof liability if they are “money judgment[s]” as the term is used\\nin § 362(b)(4). See S. Rep. No. 95‐989, at 52 (1978), reprinted in\\n1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5787, 5838 (“Since the assets of the debtor\\nare in the possession and control of the bankruptcy court, and\\n… constitute a fund out of which all creditors are entitled to\\nshare, enforcement by a governmental unit of a money judg‐\\nment would give it preferential treatment to the detriment of\\nall other creditors.”). A judgment is a “money judgment” that\\ncannot be enforced without violating the automatic stay if it\\n\\f26 Nos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023\\n\\nrequires payment. 3 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 362.05 (“[T]he\\ngovernmental unit still may commence or continue any police\\nor regulatory action, including one seeking a money judg‐\\nment, but it may enforce only those judgments and orders that do\\nnot require payment.” (emphasis added)); First All. Mortg., 263\\nB.R. at 107 (same); see also 3 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 362.05\\n(“Although a governmental unit may obtain a liability deter‐\\nmination, it may not collect on any monetary judgment re‐\\nceived.” (emphasis added)); SEC v. Brennan, 230 F.3d 65, 71\\n(2d. Cir. 2000) (“[Section] 362(b)(4) permits the entry of a\\nmoney judgment against a debtor … [but] anything beyond the\\nmere entry of a money judgment against a debtor is prohibited\\nby the automatic stay.”).\\n The City claims it did not have money judgments “be‐\\ncause it did not pursue the additional steps required to turn\\nthe citations into money judgments in the circuit court.” We\\ndisagree. A “money judgment” is simply an order that iden‐\\ntifies “the parties for and against whom judgment is being en‐\\ntered” and “a definite and certain designation of the amount …\\nowed.” Penn Terra Ltd. v. Dep’t of Envtl. Res., 733 F.2d 267, 275\\n(3d Cir. 1984). Prior to impounding a vehicle, the City must\\nadministratively adjudicate the debtor’s violations, see M.C.C.\\n§ 9‐100‐010, and those adjudications result in a determination\\nof final liability—i.e., a judgment. Only after a debtor has two\\nor three judgments against it does the Municipal Code au‐\\nthorize the City to impound the vehicle until the debtor pays\\nthe judgments and related costs and fees. See id. §§ 2‐14‐\\n132(c)(1)(A), 9‐92‐080, 9‐100‐120(b). So, without any addi‐\\ntional steps, the City had final determinations of liability re‐\\nquiring these particular debtors to pay it specific sums.\\n\\fNos. 18‐2527, 18‐2793, 18‐2835, & 18‐3023 27\\n\\n The City does not contest that it conditioned the release of\\nthe debtors’ vehicles on payment of the amount specified in\\nthe final determinations of liability. Cf. id. § 9‐100‐100(b)\\n(“Any fine and penalty … remaining unpaid after the notice\\nof final determination of liability is sent shall constitute a debt\\ndue and owing the city ….”). The continued possession of the\\nvehicles is the City’s attempt to short‐circuit the state court\\ncollection process and to enforce final judgments requiring\\nmonetary payment from the debtors. As such, the City is not\\nexcepted from the stay under § 362(b)(4). That the City is not\\nexcepted under § 362(b)(4) does not “permit[] debtors to park\\nfor free wherever they like, or to drive without a risk of fines\\nfor moving violations ….” In re Steenes, 918 F.3d 554, 558 (7th\\nCir. 2019). This just means the City needs to satisfy the debts\\nowed to it through the bankruptcy process, as do all other\\ncreditors.\\n III. Conclusion\\n For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgments of the\\nbankruptcy courts.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}}],"truncated":false,"partial":false},"paginationData":{"pageIndex":25,"numItemsPerPage":100,"numTotalItems":31175,"offset":2500,"length":100}},"jwt":"eyJhbGciOiJFZERTQSJ9.eyJyZWFkIjp0cnVlLCJwZXJtaXNzaW9ucyI6eyJyZXBvLmNvbnRlbnQucmVhZCI6dHJ1ZX0sImlhdCI6MTc3ODgyMTEyNSwic3ViIjoiL2RhdGFzZXRzL2VpdGFucy1wdS9jbC1jb2RpbmctaW5wdXQiLCJleHAiOjE3Nzg4MjQ3MjUsImlzcyI6Imh0dHBzOi8vaHVnZ2luZ2ZhY2UuY28ifQ.YZ5_OdbTp3qXfzrUFV5f4BaJEeMiIa9rAmEwKW-QzoL0YUDhWJcWzXjFezoL6d4e2FD6pFOPrYxmO3Mtq4zZAQ","displayUrls":true,"splitSizeSummaries":[{"config":"default","split":"train","numRows":31175,"numBytesParquet":1629387251}]},"discussionsStats":{"closed":0,"open":1,"total":1},"fullWidth":true,"hasGatedAccess":true,"hasFullAccess":true,"isEmbedded":false,"savedQueries":{"community":[],"user":[]}}">
id int64 | name string | name_abbreviation string | decision_date string | docket_number string | court string | casebody string | judge1 string | judge2 string | judge3 string | exactly_three_caps int64 | extra_judges string | judge_designations string | opinions_count int64 | majority_count int64 | dissent_count int64 | concurrence_count int64 | other_count int64 | primary_citation string | reporter string | volume null | resource_url string | precedential_status string | 010combined_count int64 | 020lead_count int64 | 030concurrence_count int64 | 035concurrenceinpart_count int64 | 040dissent_count int64 | year int64 | month int64 | messages list |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
4,631,462 | Power Investments, LLC v. SL EC, LLC | 2019-06-20 | 18-6098 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: SUTTON, BUSH, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "SUTTON, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name:... | SUTTON | BUSH | LARSEN | 1 | {"SUTTON": ", Circuit", "BUSH": ", Circuit", "LARSEN": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4631462/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,631,484 | Jared Hickle v. Am. Multi-Cinema | 2019-06-20 | 18-4131 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: BOGGS, MOORE, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n F... | BOGGS | MOORE | STRANCH | 1 | {"BOGGS": ", Circuit", "MOORE": ", Circuit", "STRANCH": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4631484/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,631,511 | In re Nat'l Prescription Opiate Litig. | 2019-06-20 | 18-3860 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: GUY, CLAY, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "CLAY, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0133... | GUY | CLAY | GRIFFIN | 1 | {"GUY": ", Circuit", "CLAY": ", Circuit", "GRIFFIN": ", Circuit"} | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4631511/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,631,964 | Jared HICKLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMERICAN MULTI-CINEMA, INC., Defendant-Appellee. | Jared Hickle v. Am. Multi-Cinema | 2019-06-20 | 18-4131 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Boggs, Moore, Stranch", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0131p.06\n\n ... | BOGGS | MOORE | STRANCH | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4631964/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
8,444,022 | POWER INVESTMENTS, LLC v. SL EC, LLC Michael F. Becker | Power Invs., LLC v. SL EC, LLC | 2019-06-20 | No. 18-6098 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Bush, Larsen, Sutton", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/8415458/", "author_raw": ""}]} | BUSH | LARSEN | SUTTON | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/8444022/ | Published | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
8,444,023 | IN RE: NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION. HD Media Company, LLC (18-3839) The W.P. Company, LLC, dba The Washington Post (18-3860), Intervenors-Appellants v. United States Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration, Interested Parties-Appellees, Distributor Defendants Manufacturing Defendants Chain Pha... | W.P. Co. v. U.S. Dep't of Justice (In re Nat'l Prescription Opiate Litig. HD Media Co.) | 2019-06-20 | 18-3839; 18-3860 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Clay", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/8415459/", "author_raw": ""}]} | CLAY | CLAY | 0 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/8444023/ | Published | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,631,963 | Quincy DENNIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J.A. TERRIS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. | Quincy Dennis v. J.A. Terris | 2019-06-21 | 18-2081 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Rogers, Sutton, Readler", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "SUTTON, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0134p.06\n\n ... | ROGERS | SUTTON | READLER | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4631963/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,633,719 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Renerto Lamar MAYES, Defendant-Appellant. | United States v. Renerto Mayes | 2019-06-27 | 18-5902 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "White, Bush, Larsen", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0136p.06\n\n ... | WHITE | BUSH | LARSEN | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4633719/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,633,720 | Jane DOE, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF MEMPHIS, Defendant-Appellee. | Jane Doe v. City of Memphis | 2019-06-27 | 18-5565 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Clay, McKeague", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/9888821/", "author_raw": ""}, {"author": "McKEAGUE", "type": "040dissent", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opi... | CLAY | MCKEAGUE | CLAY | 1 | {} | 4 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4633720/ | Published | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,635,241 | Randy BERKSHIRE (17-1993 & 17-2039), Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Debra Dahl, Donna BEAUVAIS, Christopher Sermo, and Michael Nelson (17-2039); Vasilis Pozios (17-1993), Defendants-Appellants. | Randy Berkshire v. Debra Dahl | 2019-06-28 | 17-1993; 17-2039 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Merritt, Moore, White", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0139p.06\n\n ... | MERRITT | MOORE | WHITE | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4635241/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,635,242 | LOUISIANA-PACIFIC CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JAMES HARDIE BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant-Appellee. | Louisiana-Pacific Corp. v. James Hardie Building Prods. | 2019-06-28 | 18-5913 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Cook, McKEAGUE, White", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "COOK, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0137p.06\n\n ... | COOK | MCKEAGUE | WHITE | 1 | {"McKEAGUE": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4635242/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,635,243 | Joseph D. WATSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Patrick PEARSON, Et Al., Defendants, David Mendez and Ron Talbott, in Their Official and Individual Capacities; Blount County Sheriff's Office; Blount County, Tennessee, Defendants-Appellees. | Joseph Watson v. Patrick Pearson | 2019-06-28 | 18-6047 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Gilman, Kethledge", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/9888842/", "author_raw": ""}, {"author": "", "type": "040dissent", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions... | GILMAN | KETHLEDGE | GILMAN | 1 | {} | 4 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4635243/ | Published | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,625,572 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Demontae BELL, Defendant-Appellant. | United States v. Demontae Bell | 2019-06-03 | 17-3505 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before RIPPLE, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "ST. EVE, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 17‐3505\nUNITED STAT... | RIPPLE | HAMILTON | ST EVE | 1 | {"RIPPLE": ", Circuit", "HAMILTON": ", Circuit", "ST EVE": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4625572/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,625,663 | United States v. Demontae Bell | 2019-06-03 | 17-3505 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before RIPPLE, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "ST. EVE, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 17‐3505\nUNITED STAT... | RIPPLE | HAMILTON | ST EVE | 1 | {"RIPPLE": ", Circuit", "HAMILTON": ", Circuit", "ST EVE": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4625663/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,625,673 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Herman D. ADAIR, Defendant-Appellant. | United States v. Herman Adair | 2019-06-03 | 18-2796 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Sykes, Scudder, Eve", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "SCUDDER, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-2796\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n ... | SYKES | SCUDDER | 0 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4625673/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,625,677 | COMMON CAUSE INDIANA, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MARION COUNTY ELECTION BOARD, Et Al., Defendants. Appeal Of: State of Indiana | Common Cause Indiana v. Marion County Election Board | 2019-06-03 | 18-2735 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Flaum, Kanne, Sykes", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Joel Martin Flaum", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18‐2735\nCOMMON CAUSE INDIANA, et al.,\n ... | FLAUM | KANNE | SYKES | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4625677/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,625,683 | United States v. Herman Adair | 2019-06-03 | 18-2796 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before SYKES, SCUDDER, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "SCUDDER, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-2796\nUNITED STATES... | SYKES | SCUDDER | ST EVE | 1 | {"SYKES": ", Circuit", "SCUDDER": ", Circuit", "ST EVE": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4625683/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,625,686 | FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EDWARD E. GILLEN COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. | Fidelity and Deposit Company v. Edward E. Gillen Company | 2019-06-03 | 18-2144 & 18-3446 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Easterbrook, Sykes, Brennan", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "BRENNAN, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNos. 18-2144 & 18-3446\nFIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY... | EASTERBROOK | SYKES | BRENNAN | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4625686/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,625,688 | Common Cause Indiana v. Marion County Election Board | 2019-06-03 | 18-2735 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before FLAUM, KANNE, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Joel Martin Flaum", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18‐2735\nCOMMON CAUSE INDIANA, ... | FLAUM | KANNE | SYKES | 1 | {"FLAUM": ", Circuit", "KANNE": ", Circuit", "SYKES": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4625688/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,625,724 | United States v. Herman Adair | 2019-06-03 | 18-2796 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before SYKES, SCUDDER, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "SCUDDER, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-2796\nUNITED STATES... | SYKES | SCUDDER | ST EVE | 1 | {"SYKES": ", Circuit", "SCUDDER": ", Circuit", "ST EVE": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4625724/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,625,726 | Fidelity and Deposit Company v. Edward E. Gillen Company | 2019-06-03 | 18-2144 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before EASTERBROOK, SYKES, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "BRENNAN, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNos. 18-2144 & 18-3446\n... | EASTERBROOK | SYKES | BRENNAN | 1 | {"EASTERBROOK": ", Circuit", "SYKES": ", Circuit", "BRENNAN": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4625726/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,625,728 | Common Cause Indiana v. Marion County Election Board | 2019-06-03 | 18-2735 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before FLAUM, KANNE, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Joel Martin Flaum", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18‐2735\nCOMMON CAUSE INDIANA, ... | FLAUM | KANNE | SYKES | 1 | {"FLAUM": ", Circuit", "KANNE": ", Circuit", "SYKES": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4625728/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,626,048 | Julio Cesar NAJERA-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. | Julio Najera-Rodriguez v. William P. Barr | 2019-06-04 | 18-2416 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Eve, Hamilton, Ripple", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "David Frank Hamilton", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-2416\nJULIO CESAR NAJERA-RODRIGUEZ,\n ... | HAMILTON | RIPPLE | 0 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4626048/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,626,052 | Paula CASILLAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MADISON AVENUE ASSOCIATES, INC., an Indiana Corporation, Defendant-Appellee. | Paula Casillas v. Madison Avenue Associates, Inc | 2019-06-04 | 17-3162 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before SYKES and BARRETT, Circuit Judges, and DURKIN, District Judge.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Diane Pamela Wood", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo... | SYKES | BARRETT | DURKIN | 1 | {"SYKES": ", Circuit", "BARRETT": ", Circuit", "DURKIN": ", District"} | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4626052/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,626,053 | Julio Najera-Rodriguez v. William P. Barr | 2019-06-04 | 18-2416 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before RIPPLE, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "David Frank Hamilton", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-2416\nJULIO CESAR NAJ... | RIPPLE | HAMILTON | ST EVE | 1 | {"RIPPLE": ", Circuit", "HAMILTON": ", Circuit", "ST EVE": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4626053/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,626,103 | Paula Casillas v. Madison Avenue Associates, Inc | 2019-06-04 | 17-3162 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before SYKES and BARRETT, Circuit Judges, and DURKIN, District Judge.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Diane Pamela Wood", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo... | SYKES | BARRETT | DURKIN | 1 | {"SYKES": ", Circuit", "BARRETT": ", Circuit", "DURKIN": ", District"} | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4626103/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,626,104 | Julio Najera-Rodriguez v. William P. Barr | 2019-06-04 | 18-2416 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before RIPPLE, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "David Frank Hamilton", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-2416\nJULIO CESAR NAJ... | RIPPLE | HAMILTON | ST EVE | 1 | {"RIPPLE": ", Circuit", "HAMILTON": ", Circuit", "ST EVE": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4626104/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,626,233 | Tracy D. SHIPMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee. | Tracy Shipman v. United States | 2019-06-05 | 17-3476 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Ripple, Manion, Brennan", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "BRENNAN, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 17-3476\nTRACY D. SHIPMAN,\n ... | RIPPLE | MANION | BRENNAN | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4626233/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,626,335 | Tracy Shipman v. United States | 2019-06-05 | 17-3476 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before RIPPLE, MANION, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "BRENNAN, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 17-3476\nTRACY D. SHIP... | RIPPLE | MANION | BRENNAN | 1 | {"RIPPLE": ", Circuit", "MANION": ", Circuit", "BRENNAN": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4626335/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,626,336 | Edward ACEVEDO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COOK COUNTY OFFICERS ELECTORAL BOARD, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees. | Edward Acevedo v. Cook County Officers Electora | 2019-06-05 | 18-2979 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Hamilton, Barrett, Eve", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-2979\nEDWARD ACEVEDO,\n ... | HAMILTON | BARRETT | 0 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4626336/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,626,538 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Paul HUSKISSON, Defendant-Appellant. | United States v. Paul Huskisson | 2019-06-05 | 18-1335 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Wood, Brennan, Eve", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "BRENNAN, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-1335\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n ... | WOOD | BRENNAN | 0 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4626538/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,626,539 | Janice LARIVIERE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees. | Janice LaRiviere v. Board Trustees of Southern Ill | 2019-06-05 | 18-3188 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Easterbrook, Kanne, Hamilton", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Michael Stephen Kanne", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18‐3188\nJANICE LARIVIERE,\n ... | EASTERBROOK | KANNE | HAMILTON | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4626539/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,626,540 | Edward Acevedo v. Cook County Officers Electora | 2019-06-05 | 18-2979 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before HAMILTON, BARRETT, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-2979\nEDWARD ACEVEDO,\n ... | HAMILTON | BARRETT | ST EVE | 1 | {"HAMILTON": ", Circuit", "BARRETT": ", Circuit", "ST EVE": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4626540/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,626,561 | United States v. Paul Huskisson | 2019-06-05 | 18-1335 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and BRENNAN and ST. EVE, Cir- cuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "BRENNAN, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-1335... | WOOD | BRENNAN | ST EVE | 1 | {"WOOD": ", Chief", "BRENNAN": ", Cir cuit", "ST EVE": ", Cir cuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4626561/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,626,562 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John BUNCICH, Defendant-Appellant. | United States v. John Buncich | 2019-06-05 | 18-1216 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Bauer, Rovner, Brennan", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "William Joseph Bauer", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\nNo. 18‐1216\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n Plaintiff... | BAUER | ROVNER | BRENNAN | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4626562/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,626,564 | Janice LaRiviere v. Board Trustees of Southern Ill | 2019-06-05 | 18-3188 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before EASTERBROOK, KANNE, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Michael Stephen Kanne", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18‐3188\nJANICE LARI... | EASTERBROOK | KANNE | HAMILTON | 1 | {"EASTERBROOK": ", Circuit", "KANNE": ", Circuit", "HAMILTON": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4626564/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,626,641 | United States v. Paul Huskisson | 2019-06-05 | 18-1335 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and BRENNAN and ST. EVE, Cir- cuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "BRENNAN, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-1335... | WOOD | BRENNAN | ST EVE | 1 | {"WOOD": ", Chief", "BRENNAN": ", Cir cuit", "ST EVE": ", Cir cuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4626641/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,626,642 | United States v. John Buncich | 2019-06-05 | 18-1216 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before BAUER, ROVNER, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "William Joseph Bauer", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\nNo. 18‐1216\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n ... | BAUER | ROVNER | BRENNAN | 1 | {"BAUER": ", Circuit", "ROVNER": ", Circuit", "BRENNAN": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4626642/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,626,646 | Janice LaRiviere v. Board Trustees of Southern Ill | 2019-06-05 | 18-3188 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before EASTERBROOK, KANNE, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Michael Stephen Kanne", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18‐3188\nJANICE LARI... | EASTERBROOK | KANNE | HAMILTON | 1 | {"EASTERBROOK": ", Circuit", "KANNE": ", Circuit", "HAMILTON": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4626646/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,627,041 | Jessica SMITH, on Behalf of Plaintiff and a Class, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SIMM ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant-Appellee. Ruel Nieto, on Behalf of Herself and Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Simm Associates, Inc., Defendant-Appellee. | Ruel Nieto v. Simm Associates, Incorporated | 2019-06-06 | 18-3350; 19-1155 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Flaum, Kanne, Sykes", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Joel Martin Flaum", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-3350\nJESSICA SMITH, on behalf of Plaintiff and a clas... | FLAUM | KANNE | SYKES | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4627041/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,627,051 | Ruel Nieto v. Simm Associates, Incorporated | 2019-06-06 | 19-1155 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before FLAUM, KANNE, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Joel Martin Flaum", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-3350\nJESSICA SMITH, on be... | FLAUM | KANNE | SYKES | 1 | {"FLAUM": ", Circuit", "KANNE": ", Circuit", "SYKES": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4627051/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,627,052 | Larry E. HATFIELD, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General of the United States, Defendant-Appellant. | Larry Hatfield v. William P. Barr | 2019-06-06 | 18-2385 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Flaum, Easterbrook, Sykes", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Diane S. Sykes", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\n\nNo. 18‐2385\nLARRY E. HATFIELD,\n ... | FLAUM | EASTERBROOK | SYKES | 1 | {} | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4627052/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,627,160 | Larry Hatfield v. William P. Barr | 2019-06-06 | 18-2385 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before FLAUM, EASTERBROOK, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Diane S. Sykes", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\n\nNo. 18‐2385\nLARRY E. HATFIELD... | FLAUM | EASTERBROOK | SYKES | 1 | {"FLAUM": ", Circuit", "EASTERBROOK": ", Circuit", "SYKES": ", Circuit"} | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4627160/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,627,305 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric S. SPIVEY, Defendant-Appellant. | United States v. Eric Spivey | 2019-06-07 | 18-2435 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before BAUER, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "ST. EVE, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-2435\nUNITED STAT... | BAUER | HAMILTON | ST EVE | 1 | {"BAUER": ", Circuit", "HAMILTON": ", Circuit", "ST EVE": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4627305/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,627,354 | United States v. Eric Spivey | 2019-06-07 | 18-2435 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before BAUER, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "ST. EVE, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-2435\nUNITED STAT... | BAUER | HAMILTON | ST EVE | 1 | {"BAUER": ", Circuit", "HAMILTON": ", Circuit", "ST EVE": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4627354/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,627,355 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles D. ST. CLAIR, Defendant-Appellant. | United States v. Charles D. St. Clair | 2019-06-07 | 18-1933 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Kanne, Hamilton, Eve", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "David Frank Hamilton", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-1933\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n ... | KANNE | HAMILTON | 0 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4627355/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,627,407 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gregory M. TERRONEZ, Defendant-Appellant. | United States v. Gregory Terronez | 2019-06-07 | 18-3169 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Flaum, Manion, Barrett", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Joel Martin Flaum", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18‐3169\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n ... | FLAUM | MANION | BARRETT | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4627407/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,627,408 | United States v. Eric Spivey | 2019-06-07 | 18-2435 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before BAUER, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "ST. EVE, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-2435\nUNITED STAT... | BAUER | HAMILTON | ST EVE | 1 | {"BAUER": ", Circuit", "HAMILTON": ", Circuit", "ST EVE": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4627408/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,627,409 | United States v. Charles D. St. Clair | 2019-06-07 | 18-1933 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before KANNE, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "David Frank Hamilton", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-1933\nUNITED STATES ... | KANNE | HAMILTON | ST EVE | 1 | {"KANNE": ", Circuit", "HAMILTON": ", Circuit", "ST EVE": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4627409/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,627,411 | Humberto TRUJILLO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROCKLEDGE FURNITURE LLC, Doing Business as Ashley Furniture Homestore, Defendant-Appellee. | Humberto Trujillo v. Rockledge Furniture | 2019-06-07 | 18-3349 & 19-1651 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Bauer, Hamilton, Eve", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "David Frank Hamilton", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNos. 18‐3349 & 19‐1651\nHUMBERTO TRUJILLO,\n ... | BAUER | HAMILTON | 0 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4627411/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,627,613 | Yaya TOURE, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. | Yaya Toure v. William P. Barr | 2019-06-07 | 18-3634 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Wood, Easterbrook, Hamilton", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "David Frank Hamilton", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18‐3634\nYAYA TOURE,\n ... | WOOD | EASTERBROOK | HAMILTON | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4627613/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,627,614 | United States v. Gregory Terronez | 2019-06-07 | 18-3169 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before FLAUM, MANION, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Joel Martin Flaum", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18‐3169\nUNITED STATES OF ... | FLAUM | MANION | BARRETT | 1 | {"FLAUM": ", Circuit", "MANION": ", Circuit", "BARRETT": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4627614/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,627,615 | United States v. Eric Spivey | 2019-06-07 | 18-2435 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before BAUER, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "ST. EVE, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-2435\nUNITED STAT... | BAUER | HAMILTON | ST EVE | 1 | {"BAUER": ", Circuit", "HAMILTON": ", Circuit", "ST EVE": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4627615/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,627,616 | United States v. Charles D. St. Clair | 2019-06-07 | 18-1933 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before KANNE, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "David Frank Hamilton", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-1933\nUNITED STATES ... | KANNE | HAMILTON | ST EVE | 1 | {"KANNE": ", Circuit", "HAMILTON": ", Circuit", "ST EVE": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4627616/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,627,618 | Humberto Trujillo v. Rockledge Furniture | 2019-06-07 | 19-1651 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before BAUER, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "David Frank Hamilton", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNos. 18‐3349 & 19‐1651\nHUMBE... | BAUER | HAMILTON | ST EVE | 1 | {"BAUER": ", Circuit", "HAMILTON": ", Circuit", "ST EVE": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4627618/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,627,733 | Yaya Toure v. William P. Barr | 2019-06-07 | 18-3634 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "David Frank Hamilton", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18‐363... | WOOD | EASTERBROOK | HAMILTON | 1 | {"WOOD": ", Chief", "EASTERBROOK": ", Circuit", "HAMILTON": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4627733/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,627,734 | United States v. Gregory Terronez | 2019-06-07 | 18-3169 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before FLAUM, MANION, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Joel Martin Flaum", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18‐3169\nUNITED STATES OF ... | FLAUM | MANION | BARRETT | 1 | {"FLAUM": ", Circuit", "MANION": ", Circuit", "BARRETT": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4627734/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,627,736 | Humberto Trujillo v. Rockledge Furniture | 2019-06-07 | 19-1651 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before BAUER, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "David Frank Hamilton", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNos. 18‐3349 & 19‐1651\nHUMBE... | BAUER | HAMILTON | ST EVE | 1 | {"BAUER": ", Circuit", "HAMILTON": ", Circuit", "ST EVE": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4627736/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,628,223 | UNCOMMON, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SPIGEN, INC., Defendant-Appellee. | Uncommon, LLC v. Spigen, Inc. | 2019-06-11 | 18-1917 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before SYKES, SCUDDER, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "ST. EVE, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-1917\nUNCOMMON, LLC... | SYKES | SCUDDER | ST EVE | 1 | {"SYKES": ", Circuit", "SCUDDER": ", Circuit", "ST EVE": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4628223/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,628,399 | Uncommon, LLC v. Spigen, Inc. | 2019-06-11 | 18-1917 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before SYKES, SCUDDER, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "ST. EVE, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-1917\nUNCOMMON, LLC... | SYKES | SCUDDER | ST EVE | 1 | {"SYKES": ", Circuit", "SCUDDER": ", Circuit", "ST EVE": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4628399/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,628,452 | Slobodanka NESTOROVIC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO, Defendant-Appellee. | Nestorovic v. Metro. Water Reclamation Dist. of Greater Chi. | 2019-06-11 | 18-2562 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before BARRETT, BRENNAN, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "PER CURIAM", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-2562\nSLOBODANKA NESTORO... | BARRETT | BRENNAN | SCUDDER | 1 | {"BARRETT": ", Circuit", "BRENNAN": ", Circuit", "SCUDDER": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4628452/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,628,504 | Slobodanka Nestorovic v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation | 2019-06-11 | 18-2562 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before BARRETT, BRENNAN, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "PER CURIAM", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-2562\nSLOBODANKA NESTORO... | BARRETT | BRENNAN | SCUDDER | 1 | {"BARRETT": ", Circuit", "BRENNAN": ", Circuit", "SCUDDER": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4628504/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,628,565 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony J. LEFLORE, Defendants-Appellant. | United States v. Anthony LeFlore | 2019-06-12 | 19-1169 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before FLAUM, SCUDDER, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "PER CURIAM", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 19-1169\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n... | FLAUM | SCUDDER | ST EVE | 1 | {"FLAUM": ", Circuit", "SCUDDER": ", Circuit", "ST EVE": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4628565/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,628,608 | United States v. Anthony LeFlore | 2019-06-12 | 19-1169 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before FLAUM, SCUDDER, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "PER CURIAM", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 19-1169\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n... | FLAUM | SCUDDER | ST EVE | 1 | {"FLAUM": ", Circuit", "SCUDDER": ", Circuit", "ST EVE": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4628608/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,628,609 | Shirley LACKO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED OF OMAHA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. | Shirley Lacko v. United of Omaha Life Insurance | 2019-06-12 | 18-2155 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Bauer, Rovner, Eve", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Ilana Kara Diamond Rovner", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18‐2155\nSHIRLEY LACKO,\n ... | BAUER | ROVNER | 0 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4628609/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,628,691 | United States v. Anthony LeFlore | 2019-06-12 | 19-1169 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before FLAUM, SCUDDER, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "PER CURIAM", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 19-1169\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n... | FLAUM | SCUDDER | ST EVE | 1 | {"FLAUM": ", Circuit", "SCUDDER": ", Circuit", "ST EVE": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4628691/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,628,692 | Shirley Lacko v. United of Omaha Life Insurance | 2019-06-12 | 18-2155 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before BAUER, ROVNER, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Ilana Kara Diamond Rovner", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18‐2155\nSHIRLEY LAC... | BAUER | ROVNER | ST EVE | 1 | {"BAUER": ", Circuit", "ROVNER": ", Circuit", "ST EVE": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4628692/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,628,693 | Leonte WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Vipin SHAH, Suzann Bailey, John Baldwin, and Jacqueline Lashbrook, Defendants-Appellees. | Leonte Williams v. Vipin Shah | 2019-06-12 | 18-2439 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Bauer, Rovner, Brennan", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Ilana Kara Diamond Rovner", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\nNo. 18-2439\n\nLEONTE WILLIAMS,\n Plaintiff-Appe... | BAUER | ROVNER | BRENNAN | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4628693/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,628,868 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David TJADER, Defendant-Appellant. | United States v. David Tjader | 2019-06-12 | 18-2447 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before KANNE, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "ST. EVE, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18‐2447\nUNITED STATE... | KANNE | HAMILTON | ST EVE | 1 | {"KANNE": ", Circuit", "HAMILTON": ", Circuit", "ST EVE": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4628868/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,628,869 | Shirley Lacko v. United of Omaha Life Insurance | 2019-06-12 | 18-2155 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before BAUER, ROVNER, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Ilana Kara Diamond Rovner", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18‐2155\nSHIRLEY LAC... | BAUER | ROVNER | ST EVE | 1 | {"BAUER": ", Circuit", "ROVNER": ", Circuit", "ST EVE": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4628869/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,628,870 | Leonte Williams v. Vipin Shah | 2019-06-12 | 18-2439 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before BAUER, ROVNER, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Ilana Kara Diamond Rovner", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\nNo. 18-2439\n\nLEONTE WILLIAMS,\n ... | BAUER | ROVNER | BRENNAN | 1 | {"BAUER": ", Circuit", "ROVNER": ", Circuit", "BRENNAN": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4628870/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,628,871 | BODUM USA, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. a TOP NEW CASTING INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellant. | Bodum USA, Incorporated v. A Top New Casting Incorporated | 2019-06-12 | 18-3020 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Flaum, Manion, Barrett", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Joel Martin Flaum", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18‐3020\nBODUM USA, INCORPORATED,\n ... | FLAUM | MANION | BARRETT | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4628871/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,628,922 | United States v. David Tjader | 2019-06-12 | 18-2447 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before KANNE, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "ST. EVE, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18‐2447\nUNITED STATE... | KANNE | HAMILTON | ST EVE | 1 | {"KANNE": ", Circuit", "HAMILTON": ", Circuit", "ST EVE": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4628922/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,628,923 | Mark RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant-Appellee. | Richardson v. Chi. Transit Auth. | 2019-06-12 | 17-3508 & 18-2199 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Flaum, Kanne, Scudder", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\nMARK RICHARDSON,\n Pla... | FLAUM | KANNE | SCUDDER | 1 | {} | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4628923/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,628,924 | Bodum USA, Incorporated v. A Top New Casting Incorporated | 2019-06-12 | 18-3020 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before FLAUM, MANION, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Joel Martin Flaum", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18‐3020\nBODUM USA, INCORPOR... | FLAUM | MANION | BARRETT | 1 | {"FLAUM": ", Circuit", "MANION": ", Circuit", "BARRETT": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4628924/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,628,978 | United States v. David Tjader | 2019-06-12 | 18-2447 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before KANNE, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "ST. EVE, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18‐2447\nUNITED STATE... | KANNE | HAMILTON | ST EVE | 1 | {"KANNE": ", Circuit", "HAMILTON": ", Circuit", "ST EVE": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4628978/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,628,979 | Mark Richardson v. CTA | 2019-06-12 | 18-2199 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before FLAUM, KANNE, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\nMARK RICHARDSON,\n ... | FLAUM | KANNE | SCUDDER | 1 | {"FLAUM": ", Circuit", "KANNE": ", Circuit", "SCUDDER": ", Circuit"} | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4628979/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,628,980 | Mark Richardson v. CTA | 2019-06-12 | 17-3508 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before FLAUM, KANNE, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNos. 17-3508 & 18-2199\nMARK RICHARDSON,\n ... | FLAUM | KANNE | SCUDDER | 1 | {"FLAUM": ", Circuit", "KANNE": ", Circuit", "SCUDDER": ", Circuit"} | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4628980/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,629,266 | James A. MOLLET, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF GREENFIELD, Defendant-Appellee. | James Mollet v. City of Greenfield | 2019-06-13 | 18-3685 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Bauer, Manion, Brennan", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "William Joseph Bauer", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\nNo. 18-3685\n\nJAMES A. MOLLET,\n Plaintiff-Appella... | BAUER | MANION | BRENNAN | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4629266/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,629,448 | Jennifer MILLER, Scott Poole, and Kevin Englund, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., Defendant-Appellee. David Johnson, Individually and on Behalf of a Class, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. United Airlines, Inc., and United Continental Holdings, Inc., Defendants-Appellants. | Jennifer Miller v. Southwest Airlines Company | 2019-06-13 | 18-3476; 19-1785 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Wood, Bauer, Easterbrook", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Frank Hoover Easterbrook", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\n\nNo. 18-3476\nJENNIFER MILLER, SCOTT POOLE, and KEVI... | WOOD | BAUER | EASTERBROOK | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4629448/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,629,449 | James Mollet v. City of Greenfield | 2019-06-13 | 18-3685 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before BAUER, MANION, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "William Joseph Bauer", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\nNo. 18-3685\n\nJAMES A. MOLLET,\n ... | BAUER | MANION | BRENNAN | 1 | {"BAUER": ", Circuit", "MANION": ", Circuit", "BRENNAN": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4629449/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,629,545 | Jennifer Miller v. Southwest Airlines Company | 2019-06-13 | 18-3476 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and BAUER and EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Frank Hoover Easterbrook", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\n\nNo. 18-... | WOOD | BAUER | EASTERBROOK | 1 | {"WOOD": ", Chief", "BAUER": ", Circuit", "EASTERBROOK": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4629545/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,629,850 | Shaka FREEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO, Defendant-Appellee. | Freeman v. Metro. Water Reclamation Dist. of Greater Chi. | 2019-06-14 | 18-3737 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "PER CURIAM", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-373... | WOOD | EASTERBROOK | ROVNER | 1 | {"WOOD": ", Chief", "EASTERBROOK": ", Circuit", "ROVNER": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4629850/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,629,895 | Shaka Freeman v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation | 2019-06-14 | 18-3737 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "PER CURIAM", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-373... | WOOD | EASTERBROOK | ROVNER | 1 | {"WOOD": ", Chief", "EASTERBROOK": ", Circuit", "ROVNER": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4629895/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,629,896 | Harold Wade v. Kreisler Law, P.C. | 2019-06-14 | 18-2564 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before KANNE, SYKES, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Diane S. Sykes", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-2564\nIN RE:\n H... | KANNE | SYKES | HAMILTON | 1 | {"KANNE": ", Circuit", "SYKES": ", Circuit", "HAMILTON": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4629896/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,629,996 | Harold Wade v. Kreisler Law, P.C. | 2019-06-14 | 18-2564 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before KANNE, SYKES, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Diane S. Sykes", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-2564\nIN RE:\n H... | KANNE | SYKES | HAMILTON | 1 | {"KANNE": ", Circuit", "SYKES": ", Circuit", "HAMILTON": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4629996/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
8,444,009 | IN RE: Harold WADE and Lorraine Wade, Debtors-Appellants. | In re Wade | 2019-06-14 | No. 18-2564 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Hamilton, Kanne, Sykes", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/8415444/", "author_raw": ""}]} | HAMILTON | KANNE | SYKES | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/8444009/ | Published | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,630,160 | Gheorgui MARTOV, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee. | Gheorgui Martov v. United States | 2019-06-17 | 18-3424 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before FLAUM, HAMILTON, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "PER CURIAM", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-3424\nGHEORGUI MARTOV,\n ... | FLAUM | HAMILTON | SCUDDER | 1 | {"FLAUM": ", Circuit", "HAMILTON": ", Circuit", "SCUDDER": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4630160/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,630,184 | John DOE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kevin K. MCALEENAN, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees. | John Doe v. Kevin K. McAleenan | 2019-06-17 | 17-3521 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Ripple, Manion, Sykes", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Diane S. Sykes", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 17-3521\nJOHN DOE,\n ... | RIPPLE | MANION | SYKES | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4630184/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,630,185 | Gheorgui Martov v. United States | 2019-06-17 | 18-3424 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before FLAUM, HAMILTON, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "PER CURIAM", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-3424\nGHEORGUI MARTOV,\n ... | FLAUM | HAMILTON | SCUDDER | 1 | {"FLAUM": ", Circuit", "HAMILTON": ", Circuit", "SCUDDER": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4630185/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,630,294 | Tyrone Gabb v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc. | 2019-06-17 | 18-2351 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before RIPPLE, MANION, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Daniel Anthony Manion", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-2351\nTYRONE GABB,\n ... | RIPPLE | MANION | SYKES | 1 | {"RIPPLE": ", Circuit", "MANION": ", Circuit", "SYKES": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4630294/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,630,295 | John Doe v. Kevin K. McAleenan | 2019-06-17 | 17-3521 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before RIPPLE, MANION, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Diane S. Sykes", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 17-3521\nJOHN DOE,\n ... | RIPPLE | MANION | SYKES | 1 | {"RIPPLE": ", Circuit", "MANION": ", Circuit", "SYKES": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4630295/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,630,296 | Catherine WANKO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY, Defendant-Appellee. | Catherine Wanko v. Board of Trustees of Indiana U | 2019-06-17 | 18-2767 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Ripple, Manion, Sykes", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Daniel Anthony Manion", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18‐2767\nCATHERINE WANKO,\n ... | RIPPLE | MANION | SYKES | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4630296/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,630,330 | Tyrone Gabb v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc. | 2019-06-17 | 18-2351 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before RIPPLE, MANION, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Daniel Anthony Manion", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-2351\nTYRONE GABB,\n ... | RIPPLE | MANION | SYKES | 1 | {"RIPPLE": ", Circuit", "MANION": ", Circuit", "SYKES": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4630330/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,630,331 | Catherine Wanko v. Board of Trustees of Indiana U | 2019-06-17 | 18-2767 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before RIPPLE, MANION, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Daniel Anthony Manion", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18‐2767\nCATHERINE WANKO,... | RIPPLE | MANION | SYKES | 1 | {"RIPPLE": ", Circuit", "MANION": ", Circuit", "SYKES": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4630331/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,630,644 | Jeremiah FELTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Bryan BARTOW, Respondent-Appellee. | Jeremiah Felton v. Byran Bartow | 2019-06-18 | 18-1954 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Ripple, Manion, Brennan", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Daniel Anthony Manion", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18‐1954\nJEREMIAH FELTON,\n ... | RIPPLE | MANION | BRENNAN | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4630644/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,630,720 | Jeremiah Felton v. Byran Bartow | 2019-06-18 | 18-1954 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before RIPPLE, MANION, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Daniel Anthony Manion", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18‐1954\nJEREMIAH FELTO... | RIPPLE | MANION | BRENNAN | 1 | {"RIPPLE": ", Circuit", "MANION": ", Circuit", "BRENNAN": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4630720/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,631,297 | DUNCAN PLACE OWNERS ASSOCIATION, on Its Own Behalf and as Assignee of the Association Members, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DANZE, INC., F/K/A Globe Union America Corporation, and Globe Union Group, Inc., Defendants-Appellees. | Duncan Place Owners Associatio v. Danze, Inc. | 2019-06-19 | 17-3474 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Wood, Bauer, Sykes", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Diane S. Sykes", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 17-3474\nDUNCAN PLACE OWNERS ASSOCIATION,\non its own behalf an... | WOOD | BAUER | SYKES | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4631297/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,631,323 | Duncan Place Owners Associatio v. Danze, Inc. | 2019-06-19 | 17-3474 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and BAUER and SYKES, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Diane S. Sykes", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 17-3474\nDUNCAN PLA... | WOOD | BAUER | SYKES | 1 | {"WOOD": ", Chief", "BAUER": ", Circuit", "SYKES": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4631323/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,631,324 | In RE: Robbin L. FULTON, Debtor-Appellee. Appeal Of: City of Chicago in Re: Jason S. Howard, Debtor-Appellee. Appeal Of: City of Chicago in Re: George Peake, Debtor-Appellee. Appeal Of: City of Chicago in Re: Timothy Shannon, Debtor-Appellee. Appeal Of: City of Chicago | City of Chicago v. Timothy Shannon | 2019-06-19 | 18-2527; 18-2793; 18-2835; 18-3023 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Flaum, Kanne, Scudder", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Joel Martin Flaum", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\n\n\n\n\nNo. 18‐2527\nIN RE: ROBBIN L. FULTON,\n ... | FLAUM | KANNE | SCUDDER | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4631324/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 6 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.