No. 18-5188 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States OCTOBER TERM 2019 _______________________________________ HANK SCHRADER, Petitioner, v. STATE OF NEW TEJAS, Respondent. _______________________________________ ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRTEENTH CIRCUIT _______________________________________ BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONER _______________________________________ TEAM NUMBER 18 NOVEMBER 18, 2019 COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Whether disputed facts underlying a federal officer’s motion to dismiss a state criminal prosecution based on Supremacy Clause immunity are decided by the district court or viewed in the light most favorable to the State. II. Whether a federal officer is immune from state criminal prosecution under the Supremacy Clause when he acts within the general scope of his duties and does not violate clearly established federal law. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTIONS PRESENTED ............................................................................................ ii TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................................................................. iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .............................................................................................vi OPINIONS BELOW .......................................................................................................... 1 JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT................................................................................... 1 CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS ............................................... 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE .......................................................................................... 2 I. Factual History ....................................................................................................... 2 II. Procedural History .................................................................................................. 5 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT .................................................................................. 7 ARGUMENT....................................................................................................................... 9 I. THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY RESOLVED DISPUTED ISSUES OF FACT UPON WHICH IT GRANTED AGENT SCHRADER’S MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE. ........................................................................................ 9 A. The District Court’s Resolution of Disputed Issues of Fact Did Not Invade the Province of the Ultimate Fact Finder. ......................... 10 B. Viewing the Facts in the Light Most Favorable to the State Undermines the Purpose of 28 U.S.C. § 1442 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b) by Restricting the Federal Court’s Ability to Provide an Unbiased Safeguard. ..................................... 14 1. A district court is not precluded from deciding issues of fact when the purpose of the state criminal prosecution is to frustrate the enforcement of federal law. ........................................ 15 2. The criminal liability at stake further necessitates the need for the district court to act as a safeguard. .................................... 17 iii II. SUPREMACY CLAUSE IMMUNITY ONLY REQUIRES THAT A FEDERAL OFFICER ACTS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS GENERAL DUTIES AND NOT VIOLATE CLEARLY ESTABLISHED FEDERAL LAW. ...................................................................... 19 A. The First Prong of the Two-Part Test is Satisfied if an Officer Was Acting Within the Scope of his Federal Duties. ................................... 20 1. The narrow approach adopted by the Thirteenth Circuit is unsupported by jurisprudence and impedes the execution of United States laws. .............................................................. 22 a. The seminal case on Supremacy Clause immunity demonstrates the Supreme Court’s rejection of the restrictive application adopted by the Thirteenth Circuit. ................................................................................................... 22 b. Several circuit courts do not follow the restrictive application adopted by the Thirteenth Circuit. ................................. 23 2. The Supreme Court routinely looks to the general scope of duties when determining authorized acts in immunity cases. ........................................................................................................... 26 B. The Second Prong of The Supremacy Clause Immunity Analysis Should Only Consider Whether a Federal Officer Violated Clearly Established Federal Law. .................................................. 28 1. The Thirteenth Circuit improperly considered Agent Schrader’s subjective intent. ..................................................................... 29 a. The Supreme Court has never examined an officer’s subjective intent for Supremacy Clause immunity. .......................... 29 b. The Ninth and Tenth Circuits join the Supreme Court in not examining a federal officer’s subjective intent. ........... 30 c. The Supreme Court consistently does not examine a subjective element in other immunity cases................................... 31 2. A federal officer’s actions are objectively reasonable absent a violation of clearly established federal law. ............................. 33 iv a. The Supreme Court recognizes that state governments should not regulate the manner and means by which a federal officer carries out his duties. ................... 34 b. The regulation of a federal officer’s duties may only come from federal law. ................................................................. 36 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 39 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ........................................................................................ 40 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ............................................................................... 41 APPENDIX A: CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS ..................................................... 42 APPENDIX B: STATUTORY PROVISIONS ................................................................. 43 v TABLE OF AUTHORTIES United States Supreme Court Decisions Arizona v. Manypenny, 451 U.S. 232 (1981) ................................................................. 18 Barr v. Mateo, 360 U.S. 564 (1959) ......................................................................... 26, 27 Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824) ................................................................................ 34 Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 475 U.S. 800 (1982)............................................................. passim Johnson v. Maryland, 254 U.S. 51 (1920) ............................................................... 35, 36 McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819) ....................................................... 9, 19, 34 Mesa v. California, 489 U.S. 121 (1989) ................................................................... 5, 14 In re Neagle, 135 U.S. 1 (1890) ............................................................................... passim Ohio v. Thomas, 173 U.S. 276 (1899) .................................................... 14, 28, 34, 35, 36 Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U.S. 257 (1879) ...................................................... 9, 17, 18, 19 United States v. Covington, 395 U.S. 57 (1969) ............................................................ 10 Willingham v. Morgan, 395 U.S. 402 (1969) .......................................................... 15, 18 United States Court of Appeals Decisions Act Up!/Portland v. Bagley, 988 F.2d 868 (9th Cir. 1993)............................................ 18 Baucom v. Martin, 677 F.2d 1346 (11th Cir. 1982) ............................................... 21, 25 Clifton v. Cox, 549 F.2d 722 (9th Cir. 1977) .................................................................. 25 Denson v. United States, 574 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2009) ............................................ 20 Gregoire v. Biddle, 177 F.2d 579 (2d Cir.1949) ............................................................. 32 Idaho v. Horiuchi, 253 F.3d 359 (9th Cir.), vacated as moot, 266 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2001) .............................................................................. 12, 18, 30 Kentucky v. Long, 837 F.2d 727 (6th Cir. 1988) ................................................... passim vi Morgan. v. California, 743 F.2d 728 (9th Cir. 1984) .................................... 9, 15, 16, 17 New York v. Tanella, 374 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 2004) ................................................. 12, 17 Texas v. Kleinert, 855 F.3d 305 (5th Cir. 2017) ............................................... 23, 24, 27 United States v. Coia, 719 F.2d 1120 (11th Cir. 1983) .......................................... 10, 11 United States v. Jones, 542 F.2d 661 (6th Cir. 1976) ............................................ 10, 11 United States v. Korn, 557 F.2d 1089 (5th Cir. 1977) .................................................. 11 United States v. Mendoza, 78 F.3d 460 (9th Cir. 1996) ............................................... 11 United States v. Miller, 491 F.2d 638 (5th Cir. 1974) .................................................. 11 United States v. Gutierrez-Zamarano, 23 F.3d 235 (9th Cir. 1994)............................ 11 Whitehead v. Senkowski, 943 F.2d 230 (2d Cir. 1991) ................................................. 15 Wyoming v. Livingston, 443 F.3d 1211 (10th Cir. 2006)