Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Michael Hickson, who had become severely disabled following cardiac arrest and anoxic brain injury in 2017, was hospitalized multiple times for recurring infections but recovered from several serious episodes. In June 2020, while hospitalized for pneumonia, sepsis, and suspected COVID-19, his doctors at St. David’s Healthcare assessed him as having a 70% chance of survival. Despite this, he was placed on hospice care and a do-not-resuscitate order was issued, with medical staff indicating that his inability to walk or talk equated to a poor quality of life. Life-sustaining treatment, including food and fluids, was withdrawn, even as his condition temporarily improved. Michael’s family, led by his wife Melissa Hickson, sought answers and attempted to visit him, but were repeatedly denied access and information. Michael ultimately passed away, and subsequent public statements by the hospital disclosed protected health information and cast aspersions on Melissa’s fitness as a guardian.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas dismissed or granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all claims, including disability discrimination under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and § 1557 of the ACA, § 1983 claims, state-law medical negligence, informed consent, wrongful death, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The plaintiffs objected to the recommendations for dismissal of the disability discrimination and § 1983 claims; the district court overruled these objections and dismissed those claims with prejudice. The remaining state-law claims were later resolved on summary judgment.Upon de novo review, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that disability discrimination claims based on alleged denial of medical treatment solely due to disability are cognizable and may proceed. The court also vacated and remanded the dismissals of the informed consent and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims, but affirmed dismissal of the § 1983 claims and other state-law claims. View "Hickson v. St. David's Healthcare Partnership" on Justia Law

In this case, a police officer obtained a search warrant for a Detroit home based on information from a confidential informant and the officer’s own surveillance, which allegedly observed suspected drug transactions. The search led to the discovery of a large quantity of cocaine and firearms in a laundry hamper at the residence, along with personal mail addressed to the plaintiff, Darell Chancellor. Chancellor was later arrested and prosecuted for narcotics offenses, resulting in a conviction and a prison sentence of over fourteen years. Several years later, after a review by a Conviction Integrity Unit found the officer’s reported claims uncorroborated or refuted, Chancellor’s conviction was vacated by a state court order, and he was released from prison.Chancellor subsequently filed a federal lawsuit against the officer and the City, alleging violations of his federal and state rights, including claims of false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and a due process claim under Brady v. Maryland for failing to disclose exculpatory evidence. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment in favor of the officer, finding qualified immunity applied to the federal claims, no material issue of fact supported the Brady claim, and governmental immunity barred the state law claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that Chancellor had not presented sufficient evidence to show that the officer deliberately or recklessly lied in the search warrant affidavit, as required to overcome qualified immunity. The court also ruled that Chancellor’s due process claim failed because he did not show that the officer suppressed exculpatory evidence. Finally, the court found Chancellor’s state law claims were either inadequately argued or otherwise failed under Michigan law. The disposition by the Sixth Circuit was to affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment. View "Chancellor v. Geelhood" on Justia Law

A company operating a private detention facility in Colorado under contract with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement was sued in a class action by a former detainee. The lawsuit challenged two of the company’s work policies for detainees: a sanitation policy that required unpaid cleaning under threat of punishment, and a voluntary work program offering minimal pay. Plaintiffs alleged that the sanitation policy violated federal anti-forced-labor laws and that the voluntary work program constituted unjust enrichment under Colorado law.After discovery, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado considered the company’s argument that, under the Supreme Court’s decision in Yearsley v. W. A. Ross Construction Co., it could not be held liable for conduct that the government had lawfully “authorized and directed.” The District Court concluded that the government contract did not instruct the company to adopt the specific work policies at issue and that the company had developed those policies on its own. Therefore, the court held that the Yearsley doctrine did not shield the company from liability and allowed the case to proceed to trial.The company appealed immediately, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that a denial of Yearsley protection is not subject to interlocutory appeal under Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.The Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the Tenth Circuit’s decision, holding that Yearsley provides a merits defense, not an immunity from suit. Therefore, a pretrial order denying Yearsley protection cannot be immediately appealed; any review must wait until after final judgment. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Geo Group, Inc. v. Menocal" on Justia Law

A school administrator responsible for special education at a high school in Texas alleged that his employment was terminated in retaliation for reporting incidents of child abuse by teachers under his supervision and for cooperating with a subsequent Child Protective Services (CPS) investigation. He reported the incidents to his principal, participated in a CPS interview, and raised concerns about disciplinary actions and workplace conduct. After additional workplace conflicts and an EEOC complaint, his contract was ultimately terminated by the district’s Board of Trustees following a hearing, and his administrative appeal was unsuccessful.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas reviewed the administrator’s claims, which included constitutional violations under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, retaliation for whistleblowing, and a civil conspiracy to violate his rights. The district court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim, denied leave to amend the complaint, and denied a motion to alter or amend the judgment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Fifth Circuit held that the administrator’s speech—reporting child abuse to his supervisor, participating in the CPS investigation, and refusing to characterize events as his supervisor wished—was made in his official capacity as an employee, not as a citizen, and was therefore not protected by the First Amendment. The court also found that he received appropriate procedural due process related to his termination and did not state a claim for substantive due process. The individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, and the civil conspiracy claim failed because there was no underlying constitutional violation. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to take judicial notice of the administrative record and found other claims waived. View "Castille v. Port Arthur Independent School District" on Justia Law

Police officers responded to an assault complaint at an apartment building in Racine, Wisconsin, where they found a stabbing victim, Cannon, who identified Johnnie Russell as his assailant. Both the victim and Russell lived in the building, but Russell’s whereabouts were unknown. Building staff informed the officers that Russell might have returned to his apartment. Before obtaining a warrant, officers, with the help of the property manager, entered Russell’s apartment and conducted a brief 37-second sweep to check for injured persons or threats. No one was found. Later, officers secured a search warrant and conducted a thorough search. Russell challenged only the initial sweep, claiming it violated his Fourth Amendment rights.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted summary judgment in favor of Officer Colin Powell, holding that the warrantless entry constituted a reasonable protective sweep under the Fourth Amendment, given the violent nature of the offense, uncertainty about Russell’s location, lack of information about possible other victims, and the brief, limited nature of the search.Russell appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, contesting the district court’s ruling and arguing that Powell was not entitled to qualified immunity. The Seventh Circuit reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo. The court decided to resolve the case on qualified immunity grounds without reaching the constitutional question. It held that, based on existing precedent, it was not clearly established that the brief warrantless sweep under these circumstances was unconstitutional. Therefore, Powell was entitled to qualified immunity.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Powell. View "Russell v. Comstock" on Justia Law

A commercial trucking business owner, who is white, learned about a $25,000 grant program administered by two insurance companies in partnership with another company. The program offered grants to ten small businesses to help them purchase commercial vehicles but was limited to black-owned businesses. After receiving an email invitation to apply, the business owner began the online application but stopped and did not submit it upon realizing that only black-owned businesses were eligible. He later alleged that he would have otherwise applied and met all requirements except for the race-based criterion.Following the application deadline, the business owner and his company filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, claiming that the grant program’s racial eligibility requirement violated 42 U.S.C. § 1981 by denying them the opportunity to enter into two contracts: one at the application stage and one at the grant award stage. The complaint sought damages and injunctive relief. The district court dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they had not suffered a cognizable injury caused by the defendants’ conduct.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The Sixth Circuit held that the plaintiffs failed the causation requirement for standing because the business owner chose not to submit the application, resulting in any alleged injury being self-inflicted rather than fairly traceable to the defendants’ actions. The court clarified that the judgment was without prejudice and affirmed the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. View "Roberts v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The case centers on a defendant who, while on parole for a prior cocaine dealing conviction, orchestrated the murder of a confidential informant who had previously testified against him, with the assistance of an accomplice. The murder involved luring the victim to an apartment complex, shooting him multiple times, and later threatening potential witnesses to prevent their testimony. After the murder, the defendant made threats against the accomplice and another witness and attempted to solicit the killing of the accomplice. He also admitted his involvement to several individuals and described the crime in written letters.In proceedings before the Wayne Superior Court, the State charged the defendant with murder and sought a life without parole (LWOP) sentence, alleging aggravating circumstances. During jury selection, the defendant, who is African American, objected to the lack of minority representation in the jury venire and ultimately to the empaneling of an all-white jury, but the trial court found the selection process was random and denied his objections. The trial court admitted out-of-court statements by unavailable witnesses after finding the defendant had threatened them, and permitted another witness’s statement as an excited utterance. The jury convicted the defendant of murder and recommended LWOP, which the trial court imposed.On direct appeal, the Indiana Supreme Court reviewed the case. The Court held that the defendant was not denied his Sixth Amendment right to a jury drawn from a fair cross-section of the community because he failed to show systematic exclusion of African Americans from the jury selection process. It further found no error in admitting the unavailable witnesses’ statements, as the defendant forfeited his confrontation rights through his threats, and that any error was harmless given other substantial evidence. The Court also found no fundamental error in the jury instructions and declined to revise the LWOP sentence, affirming both the conviction and sentence. View "Carr v. State of Indiana" on Justia Law

A group of activists and the Chinook Center, a nonprofit organization, participated in a housing-rights march in Colorado Springs. After the march, the Colorado Springs Police Department (CSPD) launched an investigation targeting some participants. CSPD obtained three search warrants: two related to Jacqueline Armendariz, a protester accused of obstructing an officer by dropping her bike, and one targeting the Chinook Center’s Facebook account. The first Armendariz warrant authorized a search of her home and seizure of her electronic devices. The second allowed a search of data on those devices, including a broad keyword search. The third warrant authorized obtaining all posts, messages, and events from the Chinook Center’s Facebook account for a seven-day period.Armendariz and the Chinook Center filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against the City, individual CSPD officers, the FBI, and others, alleging that the warrants were overbroad in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement. They also brought state-law claims, and the Chinook Center alleged a violation of the Stored Communications Act. The district court granted motions to dismiss all claims, concluding that the officers were protected by qualified immunity, the plaintiffs failed to allege plausible constitutional violations, and that municipal liability was unsupported.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. It affirmed the district court’s ruling that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity regarding the warrant to seize Armendariz’s electronic devices. However, the court reversed the grant of qualified immunity to the officers for the second warrant (searching data on Armendariz’s devices) and the Facebook warrant, holding that the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged these warrants were overbroad in violation of their clearly established Fourth Amendment rights. The court also reversed the dismissal of related claims against the City and remanded for further proceedings. The dismissals of Armendariz's claims against the FBI and the United States were affirmed. View "Armendariz v. City of Colorado Springs" on Justia Law

An individual reported to police that a debit card had been stolen from his car and used at a Southaven, Mississippi, Best Buy. The Southaven Police Department obtained receipt evidence and surveillance footage but did not immediately identify a suspect. Separately, police in another Mississippi county arrested Stephen Lewis for an unrelated burglary and searched his cell phone without a warrant, discovering images of receipts from the Southaven Best Buy. The investigating officer from the Washington County Sheriff’s Department shared these images with Detective Walley of the Southaven Police Department, informing her that a search warrant had been completed, though in reality, no warrant had been issued at the time. Walley reviewed the images, which matched the fraudulent purchase, and secured an arrest warrant for Lewis, who was later indicted; charges were eventually remanded.Lewis brought multiple constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Walley in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi. The district court dismissed all but one claim, allowing Lewis’s Fourth Amendment search claim to proceed. The district court found that Walley’s review of the photographs constituted a warrantless search, violating the Fourth Amendment, and denied Walley’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, as well as her qualified immunity defense.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the denial of qualified immunity de novo. The appellate court held that it was not clearly established at the relevant time that reviewing images of receipts from a phone, sent by another officer, constituted a Fourth Amendment search requiring a warrant. The court found that Walley’s reliance on information provided by the other officer was objectively reasonable. Therefore, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment and rendered a judgment of dismissal in Walley’s favor. View "Lewis v. Walley" on Justia Law

A mother and the Connecticut Fair Housing Center sued a company that provides tenant screening reports, alleging that its practices contributed to the denial of a housing application for the mother’s disabled son. The apartment manager used the defendant’s screening platform to review applicants’ criminal histories, and the son’s application was denied based on a flagged shoplifting charge. The mother later had the charge dismissed. She also sought a copy of her son’s screening report from the defendant, but was told she needed to provide a power of attorney. She instead submitted documentation of her conservatorship, but the defendant rejected it as facially invalid due to a missing court seal.The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut held a bench trial. It found that the Fair Housing Act (FHA) did not apply to the defendant because it was not the decision-maker on housing applications; only the housing provider made those determinations. The district court also found the defendant’s requirement for a valid conservatorship certificate reasonable and not discriminatory toward handicapped individuals. However, the district court found the defendant liable under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) for a period when it insisted on a power of attorney, making it impossible for the mother to obtain her son’s consumer file.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit concluded that the Connecticut Fair Housing Center lacked standing because its diversion of resources to address the defendant’s actions did not constitute a concrete injury. The court also held that, although the FHA does not exclude certain defendants, the defendant here was not the proximate cause of the housing denial, and the mother failed to establish a prima facie case of disparate-impact discrimination. Furthermore, because she never provided a facially valid conservatorship certificate, she could not show that the defendant’s documentation requirements prevented her from obtaining the report. The court vacated, affirmed, and reversed in part, dismissing the Center’s claims, affirming no FHA liability, and reversing FCRA liability. View "CFHC v. CoreLogic Rental Prop. Sols." on Justia Law