Diane Wood - Noteworthy Rulings

Noteworthy Rulings

• Bayo v. Napolitano, No. 07-1069 (7th Cir. Jan. 20, 2010) (en banc): Wood wrote for a unanimous en banc court, holding that an alien’s waiver of constitutional due process rights must be done knowingly and voluntarily and that the government may rely upon any valid ground to remove an alien illegally in the United States.

• Bloch v. Frischholz, 533 F.3d 562 (7th Cir. 2008) (Wood, J., dissenting): An observant Jewish family affixed their mezuzah to the doorpost of their condo. The condo association repeatedly removed the mezuzah, and the family sued, alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act. Wood argued there was sufficient evidence of intentional discrimination, but the majority of the panel disagreed. After the panel decision issued, the Seventh Circuit reheard the case en banc and unanimously reversed the panel majority. Wood’s dissenting opinion, highly protective of the right to free exercise, became the unanimous opinion of the Seventh Circuit. Bloch v. Frischholz, 587 F.3d 771 (7th Cir. 2009). Two judges who initially opposed Wood’s position joined the unanimous court.

• United States v. Warner & Ryan, 498 F.3d 666 (7th Cir. 2007): Former Illinois Governor George Ryan and Lawrence Warner appealed after they were convicted under the federal mail fraud statute and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Wood, over a dissent, affirmed. She found that the lower court acted within its discretion to handle difficult evidentiary and jury issues. Wood also concluded that the federal mail fraud statute – making it a crime for elected officials to deprive citizens of their intangible right to honest services – was not unconstitutionally vague.

• Christian Legal Society v. Walker, 453 F.3d 853 (7th Cir. 2006) (dissenting opinion): Christian Legal Society appealed after an Illinois district court denied their motion to enjoin Southern Illinois Law School to recognize a Christian student organization who required members to sign a statement of faith. The majority reversed, and Wood dissented, writing that the facts were insufficient to grant a preliminary injunction. Wood did not reach the merits of the case, her decision was purely procedural in nature. She wrote:

  If, in the end, the facts show that nondiscrimination policy does not apply to student organizations, or that SIU is discriminating against CLS based upon its evangelical Christian viewpoint, the district court should certainly enjoin SIU from enforcing its policy.

  She cited Lawrence v. Texas to support the proposition that a state may ban discrimination based on either status or conduct. In April 2010, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, 08-1371 (Apr. 19, 2010). A Supreme Court blogger opined that Justice Kennedy was concerned, that the record might not have developed enough to move forward. Judge Wood stated in her dissenting opinion in Christian Legal Society v. Walker that the record was insufficient to grant injunctive relief. A news reporter has speculated that her dissenting opinion could be a point of discussion in a Supreme Court confirmation proceeding.

• National Organization for Women v. Scheidler, 267 F.3d 687 (7th Cir. 2001) and 396 F.3d 807 (7th Cir. 2005); see also National Organization of Women v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249 (1994) (Supreme Court permits case to proceed under RICO); 537 U.S. 393 (2003) (Supreme Court reverses 267 F.3d 687, construing extortion predicate to RICO violations); 547 U.S. 9 (2006) (Supreme Court holds that physical violence not covered under Hobbs Act): Wood found that the district court did not err in concluding that the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act authorized private plaintiffs to seek an injunction. Wood recognized that:

  Protection of politically controversial speech is at the core of the First Amendment, and no one disputes that the defendants' speech labeling abortion as murder, urging the clinics to get out of the abortion business, and urging clinics patients not to seek abortions is fully protected by the First Amendment.

  However, Wood held that the injunction issued by the district court, which prohibited violent conduct by protesters, struck a proper balance and avoided any risk of curtailing activities protected by the First Amendment.

• Goldwasser v. Ameritech Corp., 222 F.3d 390 (7th Cir. 2000): Because the plaintiffs had alleged only that Ameritech violated the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Wood decided that they had not shown that the antitrust laws have been violated. The opinion defers to Congress’s deregulation of the telecommunications market. Four years later, the position that Wood took in Goldwasser was approved by the Supreme Court in Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko LLP, 540 U.S. 398 (2004).

• Toys "R" Us, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, 221 F.3d 928 (7th Cir. 2000): Wood affirmed the FTC's finding of a violation, but did so only on the ground that Toys "R" Us had arranged unlawful horizontal restraints that were against the interests of manufacturers, discount warehouses, and consumers. Wood declined to adopt the more controversial conclusion that the vertical agreements between manufacturers and retailers have an adverse effect on competition.

• Tyus v. Urban Search Management, 102 F.3d 256 (7th Cir. 1996): Two African-Americans brought suit under the Fair Housing Act against those involved in running a luxury apartment complex. The marketing campaign for the complex used only images of white models and failed to provide notice that the complex was an equal housing opportunity provider. Wood reversed the lower court's judgment in favor of the owners of the complex noting serious mistakes made by the district court, including the judge's improper questioning of a prospective African-American juror about whether he had ever lived in public housing.

• United States v. Thompson, 484 F.3d 877 (7th Cir. 2007) (joining opinion of Easterbrook, J.): Georgia Thompson was convicted of corruption charges in a 2006 case, but was released by a unanimous panel of the Seventh Circuit on the same day that oral argument was heard. The panel, including Wood, felt this unprecedented move was necessary given that the government's evidence was extraordinarily thin.

• "JCW Invs. v. Novelty, Inc.", 482 F.3d 910, 917 (7th Cir. 2007): Judge Woods begins this important copyright case with these immortal words: "Meet Pull My Finger® Fred. He is a white, middle-aged, overweight man with black hair and a receding hairline, sitting in an armchair wearing a white tank top and blue pants. Fred is a plush doll and when one squeezes Fred's extended finger on his right hand, he farts. He also makes somewhat crude, somewhat funny statements about the bodily noises he emits, such as 'Did somebody step on a duck?' or 'Silent but deadly.'"