# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 6- 43 72

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Cara W il li am s; Jo hn it a Sl au gh te r; M an dr e Mi ll er; James Co ll ie r; Ter es a Jo ne s; Ch an ce Ken y on ; An th on y W il li am s; Dwann Jo ne s; Lero y Fie ld s- Cam

pb el l;

Barb ara Han se n, i nd iv id ua ll y an d o n b eh al f of

a pu ta ti ve cla ss of s im il arl y si tu at ed

in di vi du al s

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll an ts

v.

W el ls Farg o B an k, N.A.

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Nati on al Em

pl oym en t Law Pro

ject

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l

Amicu s o n Beh al

f o f Ap pe ll an t(s )

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t
fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa - Des M oi ne s

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Octo be r 16 , 20 17

Fil ed : Au gu st 29 , 20 18

__ __ __ __ __ __Befo re SM ITH, Chi ef J ud ge , MURPHY an d C OLLOTO N, Circ ui t J ud ge s. *

__ __ __ __ __ __

SMI TH, Chi ef J ud ge

.

The ap pe ll an ts are te n Afri can Am eri can s an d Lati no s who su ed W el ls Farg o

Ban k, N.A. (“ W el ls Farg o” ) on be ha lf of a pu ta ti ve cl as s, al le gi ng di sc riminat or y

em pl oym en t p ract ic es in vi ol at io n o f Tit le VII an d t he Iowa Civ il Rig ht s Act . They

se ek rev ers al of th e di st ric t co ur t’s 1 g r a n t o f s um m ary jud gm en t in fav or of W el ls

Farg o. Sp eci fic al ly, th e ap pe ll an ts arg ue th at th e co ur t erre d in co nc lu di ng th at th ey

fai le d to es ta bl i s h a p r i ma faci e cas e of di sp arat e im pa ct

. The y al so ch al le ng e th e

m ag is tra te jud ge ’s 2 or de r gr an ti ng in pa rt an d de nyin g in pa rt th ei r Fed eral Ru le of

Ci vi l Pr oc ed ur e 5 6( d) m ot io n s eek in g a dd it io na l t im e fo r di sc ov ery. W e aff irm.

I. Bac kg ro un d

Fed eral la w ba rs “ an y pe rs on who ha s be en co nv ic te d of an y cri m in al of fen se

in vo lv in g d i s h o n e s t y or a br each of tru st ” fro m be co m in g or co nt in ui ng as an

em pl oyee of an y in st it ut io n in su red by th e Fed eral Dep os it In su ran ce Co rp or at io n (FDIC)

. 12 U.S.C. § 18 29 (a)( 1) (A). Mo re co m m on ly kn own as Sect io n 19

, th e st at ut e

do es no t co ns id er th e ag e of th e co nv ic ti on s whe n ap pl y in g th e em pl oym en t ba r. Se e

Id

. § 1 82 9( 2) (A). In ot he r wor ds , a n in di vi du al wit h a on e-m on th -o ld di sq ua li fy in g

co nv ic ti o n i s e q u al ly ba rred fro m FDIC-i ns ti tu ti on em pl oym en t as a pe rs on wit h a

* Thi s op in io n is be in g fil ed by Ch ie f Ju dg e Sm it h an d Ju dg e Co ll ot on pu rs ua nt

to 8t h C ir. R

ul e 4 7E.

1 The Hon or ab le Ch arl es R. W ol le

, Uni te d St at es Dis tr ic t Judg e fo r the So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa

.

2 The Hon or ab le St ep he n B. Ja ck so n, Jr

., Uni te d St at es Mag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa

.

-2

-th irt y -y ear- ol d co nv ic ti on

. Vio la ti on s of Sect io n 19 can res ul t in da il y fin es of up to

$1 ,0 0 0

, 0 0 0 pe r da y , fiv e y ears ’ im pr is on m en t, or bo th

. Id

. § 18 29 (b ). Dis qu al ifi ed

pe rs on s m ay ap pl y fo r em pl oym en t waiv ers wit h th e FDIC. B a n k in g in st it ut io ns

wis hi ng to hi re— or to co nt in ue to em pl oy—Sect io n 19 -d is qu al ifi ed in di vi du al s al so

m ay sp on so r waiv er app li cat io ns

. No di sq ua li fie d in di vi du al m ay be gi n or co nt in ue

em pl oym en t wi th th e FDIC- in su red in st it ut io ns un ti l af te r ob ta in in g a waiv er.

W el ls Farg o is an FDIC-i ns ur ed ba nk

. Jo b ap pl ic an ts to W e ll s Farg o are

req ui red to an swe r whe th er th ey ha d a co nv ic ti on of a cri m e in vo lv in g d is ho ne st y

. 3

St art in g in 20 10

, W el ls Farg o in st it ut ed a fin ge rp rin t-b as ed ba ck gr ou nd ch eck fo r it s

cu rren t an d po te nt ia l em pl oyees. The ba ck gr ou nd ch eck ret ur n s a l l cri m in al

co nv ic ti on s, reg ard le ss of th e ag e of th e cri m e. In 20 12

, W el ls Farg o re-s cree ne d it s

en ti re Ho m e Mo rtg ag e di vi si on . Well s Farg o as ke d it s em pl oyees fo r au th or iz at io n

to re-s cree n an d ag ai n as ke d th e em pl oyees to an swe r whe th er th ey ha d co nv ic ti on s

in v o l v i n g cri m es of di sh on es ty. The ba nk th en te rm in at ed th e Hom e Mo rtg ag e

em pl oyees ve rif

ie d to ha ve Sect io n 19 di sq ua li fic at io ns

. W el ls Farg o di d no t in fo rm

th e te rm in at ed em

pl oyees of th e av ai la bi li ty of Sect io n 19 waiv ers , an d it di d no t of fer

to sp on so r waiv ers fo r an y in di vi du a l

. Bet ween Decem be r 20 11 an d Mar ch 20 13

, W el ls Farg o te rm in at ed at le as t 13 6 Afri can Am eri can s, 56 Lati no s, an d 28 whi te

e mp l o ye es be cau se of Sect io n 19 di sq ua li fic at io ns

. Bet ween Feb ru ary 20 13 a n d

Nov em be r 20 15

, W el ls Farg o a ls o wi th dr ew at lea st 1,3 50 co nd it io na l jo b o ffer s t o

Afri can Am eri can s and Lati no s and 35 4 no n- m in or it ie s af te r th e b ack gr ou nd ch eck

rev eal ed th es e in di vi du al s h ad di sq ua li fy in g c on vi ct io ns

.

The ap pe ll an t s s u ed

, al le gi ng race -b as ed em pl oym en t di sc riminat io n un de r

Tit le VII of th e Ci vi l Rig ht s Act of 19 64

, as well as vi ol at io ns un de r th e Io wa Ci vi l

3 W el ls Farg o do es no t of

fer em pl oym en t to ap pl ic an ts who an swe r “ Yes ” to th e

qu es ti on

. Thu s, al l W el ls Fa r go em pl oyees an d in di vi du al s wit h co nd it io na l job of fers

pe nd in g ba ck gr ou nd ch eck s an swe red th at th ey ha d no co nv ic ti on s in vo lv in g cri m es of di sh on es ty.

-3

-Ri gh ts Act. The y al le ge d th at W el ls Farg o’s po li cy of su m m ari l y t e r m in at in g or

wit hd rawi ng of

fers of em

pl oym en t to an y in di vi du al w i th a Sect io n 19

di sq ua li fic at io n di sc riminat ed ag ai ns t th em

. Pri or to m eri ts di sc ov ery, W e l ls Farg o

m ov ed fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t. The ap pe ll an ts fil ed a m ot io n req ue st in g ad di ti on al

ti m e to co nd uc t di sc ov ery un de r Fed eral Ru l e o f C iv il Pro ced ur e 56 (d ), an d th e

m ag is tra te jud ge pa rti al ly gr an te d an d pa rti al ly de ni ed th e m ot io n. The di st ric t co ur t

th en gr an te d su m

m ary jud gm en t to W el ls Farg o, co nc lu di ng th at th e ap pe ll an ts fai le d

to es ta bl is h a pr im a faci e cas e un de r an y t h e o r y o f em pl oym en t di sc riminat io n

pu rs ua nt to eit he r fed eral or s ta te law.

II. Dis cu ss io n

The ap pe ll an ts no w co nt en d t ha t t he di st ric t co ur t er red in gra nt in g s um m ary jud gm en t to W el ls Farg o, arg ui ng th at th e di st ric t co ur t m is ap pl ie d di sp arat e-i m pa ct

la w. Add it io na ll y , th ey ch al le ng e th e m ag is tra t e ju dg e’s ru li ng on th ei r Ru le 56 (d )

m ot io n.

A. Ti tl e VII Dis pa ra te Impa ct

Ult im at el y , at is su e in th is cas e is whe th er th e ap pe ll an t s h a d es ta bl is he d a

pr im a faci e cas e of Tit le VII di sp arat e im pa ct

, an d if th ey ha d, whe th er W el ls Farg o

fai le d to sh ow a bu si ne ss ne ces si ty de fen se

. The ap pe ll an ts co nt en d th at W el ls Farg o

refu se d to ad op t th e al te rn at iv e pr act ic es of gi vi ng ad va nc e n ot ic e o f th e ne ed fo r a

waiv er, gr an ti ng le av e to se ek a waiv er, an d pr ov id in g di rect sp on so rs hi p of a waiv er.

The y arg ue th at W el ls Farg o so m et im es to ok th es e st ep s, an d th at if th e co m pa ny ha d

do ne so un ifo rm ly, th en th e al te rn at iv e pr act ic e wou ld ha v e red uc ed th e di sp arat e

im pa ct cau se d b y

th e su m m ary ex cl us io ns . On t hi s re co rd , we di sa gr ee.

W e rev ie w gr a n t s o f s u m m ary jud gm en t de no vo

. To rg er so n v. Ci ty of

Ro c h e s t e r , 64 3 F.3 d 10 31

, 10 42 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (en ba nc ) (ci ta ti on om it te d )

.

“ Su m m ary jud gm en t is p r o p e r ‘i f th e pl ead in gs , th e di sc ov ery an d di sc lo su re

m at eri al s on fil e, an d an y affi da vi ts sh ow t h a t th ere is no ge nu in e is su e as to an y

-4

-m at eri al fact an d th at th e m ov an t is en ti tl ed to jud gm en t as a m a tt er of la w.’ ” Id

.

(q uo ti ng Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 56 (c)( 2) ). W e vi ew fact s in t h e l ig ht m os t fav or ab le to th e

no nm ov in g pa rty, an d we m ak e no de te rm in at io ns of cred ib il it y ; no r do we weig h th e

ev id en ce or dr aw i n f

e r e n c e s , as th os e fu nc ti on s be lo ng to th e jury. Id

. (ci ta ti on s

om it te d)

. Howev er, “ [m ]ere al le ga ti on s, un su pp or t e d b y s p eci fic fact s or ev id en ce

be y on d t h e no nm ov in g pa rty’ s own co nc lu si on s, are in su ffi ci en t to wit hs ta nd a

m ot io n fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t.” Men z v. New Hol la nd N. Am., In c. , 50 7 F.3d 11 07

, 11 10 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (q uo ti ng Th oma s v. Co rw in

, 48 3 F.3 d 51 6, 52 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 )).

W e m ay affi rm “ on an y ba si s s up po rte d b y

th e rec or d.” Id

. (ci ta ti on om it te d)

.

Und er Tit le VII,

an un la wfu l di sp arat e im

pa ct is es ta bl is he d un de r th at st at ut e “ on ly if,”

as r el ev an t he re, “ a co m

pl ai ni ng pa rty de m on st rat es th at a res po nd en t

us es a pa rti cu la r em

pl oym en t pr act ic e th at cau se s a di sp arat e im pa ct on th e ba si s of race

. . . an d th e res po nd e n t fai ls to de m on st rat e th at th e ch al le ng ed pr act ic e is job rel at ed fo r th e po si ti on in q u e s t io n an d

co ns is te nt wit h b us in es s n eces si ty.”

Ben ne tt v. Nu co r Co rp

. , 65 6 F.3 d 80 2, 81 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (el li ps is i n o r i gi na l)

(q uo ti ng 42 U.S.C. § 20 00 e-2 (k )(1 )(A)(i )). To sa ti sf y th e el em en ts of a pr im a f aci e

di sp arat e im

pa ct cl ai m , pl ai nt iff

s m us t de m on st rat e: “ (1 ) an id en ti f i a bl e,

faci al ly-neu tra l p ers on ne l p ol ic y or p ract ic e; (2) a di sp arat e effe ct on m em be rs of a

pr ot ect ed cl as s; an d (3 ) a cau sa l co nn ect io n be twee n th e two .” Mems v. C i t y o f St

. Pau l

, 22 4 F.3 d 73 5, 74 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ) (ci ti ng W at so n v. For t W

or th Ban k & Tr us t

, 48 7 U.S. 97 7, 99 4 (1 98 8) )

, a b r o g a te d on ot he r gr ou nd s , To rg er so n , 64 3 F.3 d at

10 59

.

The ap pe ll an ts cl ai m th at th e di st ric t erro ne ou sl y co nc lu de d th at th ey fai le d to

es ta bl is h a pr im a faci e c a s e o f d i sp arat e im pa ct

. The y as se rt th at th ey pr es en te d

su ffi ci en t st at is ti cal ev id en ce t o s h o w th e di sp ari ty be twee n whi te an d no n- whi te

-5

-W el ls Farg o em pl oyees an d po te nt ia l em

pl oyees an d th at W el ls Farg o fai le d to sh ow

a b us in es s n eces si ty. W e d is ag ree.

O n c e th e co m

pl ai ni ng pa rty sh ows th at a pa rti cu la r em pl oym en t pr act ic e o r

po li cy crea te s a di sp arat e im pa ct on a pr ot ect ed gr ou p, th e em pl oyer carr i e s t he

bu rd en of de m on st rat in g a bu si ne ss ne ces si ty to av oi d vi ol a t i n g Ti t l e VII. Se e

Ben ne tt

, 65 6 F.3 d at 81 7 (ci ti ng 42 U.S.C. § 20 00 e-2 (k )(1 )(A)(i )); se e al so Moz ee v.

Am. Co mmerc ia l Mar in e Se rv

. Co

. , 9 4 0 F

. 2 d 10 36

, 10 49 (7 th Ci r. 19 91 ) (“ [A]n

em pl oym en t pr act ic e th at res ul ts in a di sp arat e effe ct on a pr ot ect ed gr ou p m ig ht st il l

su rv iv e Tit le VII if it is su ffi c i e n t l y jo b- rel at ed to co ns ti tu te a bu si ne ss ne ces si ty.”
(ci ta ti on s om it te d) ). If th e em pl oyer m eet s “ it s bu rd en of pr od uc in g ev id en ce th at it s

em pl oym en t pr act ic es are ba se d o n l e g i t i m at e bu si ne ss reas on s, th e pl ai nt iff m us t

‘sho w th at ot he r te st s or se le ct io n de vi c e s , wit ho ut a si m il arl y un de si rab le raci al

effe ct

, wou ld al so se rv e th e em pl oyer’s le gi ti m at e in te res t in effi ci en t an d tru st wor th y

wor km an s h i p

. ’” W

at so n , 4 87 U.S. a t 99 8 (q uo ti ng Alb ema rl e Pap er Co . v . Mo od y , 42 2 U.S. 4 05 , 42 5 (1 97 5) ).

Here, Afri can -Am eri can an d Lat in o e m pl oyees wer e te rm in at ed (or po te nt ia l

em pl oyees were no t hi red ) at rat es at le as t twi ce th os e of no n- m in or it i e s

. Bu t ev en

as su m in g th at th e di sp arat e im pa ct was cau se d by W el ls Farg o’s po li cy of un ifo rm ly

a p pl y in g Sect io n 19

, th e di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y reco gn iz ed th at th e ba nk ’s “ so u n d

bu si ne ss de ci si on was to te rm in at e reg ard le ss of race or ag e or et hn ic it y .” Sl ip op

. at

4. Non -co m

pl ia nc e wit h Sect io n 19 co ul d pl ace W el ls Farg o at ris k of da il y fin es of

$1 m il li on

. Fu rth er, “ an y

ba nk or o th er fi na nc ia l i ns ti tu ti on wis el y wou ld pr efer fo r

it s cu st om ers to be se rv ed by em pl oyees who were no t pr e[v ]iou sl y pe rs on s co nv ic te d

of cri m es of di sh on es ty.” Id

. In o u r v i e w , W el ls Farg o’s po li cy of su m m ary

em pl oym en t ex cl us io n fo ll owi ng a Sect io n 19 di sq ua li fic at io n is a busi ne ss ne ces si ty.

Se e Ricc i v. DeS te

fa no , 55 7 U.S. 55 7, 57 8 (2 00 9) (“ An em pl oyer m ay de fen d ag ai ns t

li ab il it y by de m on st rat in g th at th e pr act ic e is ‘j ob rel at ed fo r th e po si ti on in qu es ti on

an d co ns is te nt wit h bu si ne ss ne ces si ty.’ ” (q uo ti ng 42 U.S.C. § 20 00 e-2 (k )(1 )(A)(i )).

-6

-The ap pe ll an ts arg ue th at

, rat he r th an su m m ary te rm in at io ns , ha d W el ls Farg o

ad op te d th e al te rn at iv e pr act ic es of gi vi ng ad va nc e no ti ce of th e ne ed fo r a Sect io n

19 waiv er, gr an ti n g l e a v e ti m e to se ek a waiv er, an d/ or sp on so rin g a waiv er, th es e

pr act ic es co ul d h av e am el io rat ed th e di sp arat e im pa ct . But ot he r th an th e as se rti on , th e ap pe ll an ts pr es en t in su f fi ci en t ev id en ce or st at is ti cs sh owi ng th at th es e al te rn at iv e

pr act ic es wou ld ha ve red uc ed th e di sp arat e im pa ct on pe op le of co lo r. The ap pe ll an ts

pr es en t st at is ti cs sh owi ng th at th e FDIC’s waiv er ap pr ov al rat e can reac h ne arl y 10 0

pe rcen t, es pe ci al ly whe n s po ns or ed by th e em pl oyer. Howev er, th e da ta do es no t

ad va nc e th e a p p e ll an ts ’ arg um en t. The ap pe ll an ts po in t to pu bl ic ly av ai la bl e da ta

sh owi ng a 99 pe rcen t fu ll

y ad ju di ca te d waiv er ap pr ov al rat e. Bu t th ey fai l to no te th at

th e FDIC reg ul arl y de cl in es to ap pr ov e ap pl ic at io ns by te rm in at in g th e waiv er

pr oc es s, un le ss a waiv er ap pl ic an t sp eci fic al ly req ue st s a pu bl ic de ni al

. Tak in g th es e

wit hd rawal s in to acco un t, th e FDIC waiv er ap pr ov al pe rcen ta ge is ap pr ox im at el y 57

pe rcen t. Se e App el le e’s Br. at 9. Fu rth er, whi le sp on so red waiv ers m ay fare be tt er, th e

ap pe ll an ts al so pr es en t no da ta th at th e sp on so red waiv ers am el io rat ed raci al

di sp ari ty. Cf

. Jo ne s v. C it

y o f Bo s. , 84 5 F .3d 28 , 36 (1s t Ci r. 20 16 ).

The st at is ti cs do no t su pp or t th e in fere nc e th at an y of th e al te rn at iv e pr act ic es

pu t fo rward by th e ap pl ic an ts wou ld res ul t in pr op or ti on al l y m or e no n- whi te

em pl oyees rece iv i n g w ai ve rs an d th ereb y red uc e th e di sp arat e im pa ct

. W it ho ut

m ean in gf ul ev id en ti ary su pp or t fo r th ei r co nt en ti on , t he ap pe ll an ts ’ arg um en t fai ls

. Se e Alb ema rl e Pap er Co

. , 42 2 U.S. at 42 5 (“ If an em pl oyer do es

. . . m eet th e bu rd en

of pr ov in g th at it s te st s are ‘j ob rel at ed ,’ it rem ai ns op en to th e co m pl ai ni ng pa rty to

sh ow th at ot h er te sts or se le ct io n de vi ces , wit ho ut a si m il arl y un de si rab le raci al effe ct

,

wou ld al so se rv e th e em pl oyer’s le gi ti m at e in te res t in ‘effici en t an d tru st w o rth y

wor km an sh ip .’ ” (q uo ti ng McDo nn el l Dou gl as Co rp

. v. Gre e n , 4 1 1 U.S. 79 2, 80 1
(1 97 3) )).

-7

-On th is reco rd an d up on de no vo rev ie w, we ho ld th a t e ve n if W el ls Farg o’s

po li cy of su m

m ari ly te rm in at in g or no t hi rin g an y Sect io n 19 di sq ua li fie d in di vi du al

crea te s a di sp arat e im

pa ct

, th e ba nk ’s de ci si on to co m pl y wit h th e st at ut e’s co m m an d

is a bu si ne ss ne ces si ty un de r Tit le VII. 4 Se e Ricc i

, 55 7 U.S. at 58 7 (“ [An em pl oyer]

co ul d be li ab le fo r di sp arat e-i m pa ct di sc riminat io n on ly if [it s em pl oym en t po li ci es ]

were n o t jo b r e l a te d an d co ns is te nt wit h bu si ne ss ne ces si ty, or if th ere ex is te d an

eq ua ll y va li d, le ss -d is cri m in at or y al te rn at iv e th at se rv ed th e [em pl oyer’s] ne ed s bu t

th at th e [em

pl oyer] refu se d t o a do pt .” (ci ti ng 42 U.S.C. § 2 00 0e -2 (k )(1 )(A), (C) )).

B. Rul e 5 6(

d) Mot io n

The ap pe ll an ts al so ch al le ng e th e m ag is tra te jud ge ’s pa r t i a l d e n ia l of th ei r

m ot io n se ek in g ad di ti on al di sc ov ery unde r Fed eral Ru le of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e 56 (d ). W e

rev ie w Ru le 56 (d ) de ni al s fo r an ab us e o f d i s cret io n. To be n v. Bri dg es to ne Reta il

Ope ra ti on s, L L C

, 75 1 F.3 d 88 8, 89 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (ci ta ti on s om it te d)

. Howev er,

whe n an ap pe ll an t fai ls to fil e ob jecti on s to th e m ag is tra te jud ge ’s or de r be fo re th e

4 The Nati on al Em

pl oym en t Law Pro

ject (NELP) ur ge s us to co ns id er th is cas e

no t in is ol at io n bu t wit hi n th e “ st ark real -wo rld co nt ex t an d th e pu bl ic po li cy

co nc ern s it pr es en ts .” Am ic us Cu ria e’s Br. at 12 (b ol d om it te d)

. Bu t we m ay no t do

wha t th e NELP as ks us to do

. “ [T]he jud ic ia ry m ay no t si t a s a su pe rle gi sl at ur e to jud ge th e wis do m or de si rab il it y of le gi sl at iv e po li cy d e t e r mi n a ti on s m ad e in area s th at ne it he r affe ct fu nd a men t al rig ht s no r pr oc eed al on g su sp ect li ne s

. . . .” Uni te d

St at es v. Fog ar ty

, 69 2 F

. 2 d 5 4 2

, 54 7 (8 th Ci r. 19 82 ) (el li ps is in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng New Orl ea ns v. Duk

es , 42 7 U.S. 29 7, 30 3 (1 97 6) ). As W el ls Farg o po in ts ou t, fed eral

an d st at e le gi sl at ur es im

po se d col la te ral co ns eq ue nc es fo r pe rs on s wit h co nv ic ti on s fo r cri m e of di s h o n e s t y b y ex cl ud in g th es e in di vi du al s fro m m or e th an 40 0 job s. App el le e’s Br. at 41 –4 2 (ci ti ng th e ABA Nati on al In ve n t o r y of Co ll at eral

Co ns eq ue nc es of Co nv ic ti on .). In th is co nt ex t, “ jud i c i al se lf- res tra in t is es pe ci al ly

ap pr op ria te whe re as he re th e ch al le ng ed cl as si fic at io n en ta il s le gi sl at iv e jud gm en ts

on a who le ho st of co nt ro ve rs ia l m ed ic al

, sc ie nt ifi c, an d so ci al is su es .” Fog ar ty

, 69 2

F.2 d at 54 7 (ci ti ng Mar

sh al l v. Uni te d St at es , 41 4 U.S. 41 7, 42 7 (1 97 4) ; Uni te d St at es

v. Ki ff er , 47 7 F.2 d 34 9, 35 2 (2 nd Ci r. 19 73 )). The se arg um en ts are m or e ap pr op ria te
be fo re Co ng res s, n ot th e co ur ts

.

-8

-di st ric t co ur t, we can no t rev ie w th e or de r on ap pe al

. McDo na ld v. Ci ty of Sa in t Pau l

,

67 9 F.3 d 69 8, 70 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (ci ti ng Dal ey v. Mar ri ot t In t’l

, In c. , 41 5 F.3 d 88 9,

89 3 n.9 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 )). Here, th e reco rd sh ows th at aft er th e m ag is tra te jud ge is su ed

th e Ru le 56 (d ) or de r, th e ap pe ll an ts di d no t ob ject. Bec au se th e ap pe ll an ts fai le d to

te st th e m ag is tra te jud ge ’s pr e-t ria l m ot io n ru li ng be fo re th e di st ric t co ur t, th ey can no t

no w le ap fro g th e di st ric t co ur t an d ap pe al th e or de r di rect ly to us

. Se e McDo na ld

, 67 9

F.3 d a t 7 09

.

III. Co nc lu si on

Affi rm ed

.

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-9

-