Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The case concerns a search of Albert Alexander’s residence by Lafayette Police Department officers, who had a warrant to search for firearms. Upon executing the warrant, the officers found only pellet rifles, but also observed a large quantity of electronics and appliances—many in unopened boxes or wrapped—inside the house. These observations, combined with prior tips from Alexander’s granddaughter and her girlfriend that stolen goods were stored there, led the officers to seize the items on suspicion they were stolen. The seized property was not listed in the original search warrant.After being charged with possession of stolen property and later acquitted at trial, Alexander filed a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. He alleged that the officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights by seizing items not listed in the warrant during the first search. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting qualified immunity. The district court granted summary judgment, finding that the officers’ seizure of the electronics and appliances was justified under the plain view doctrine, as their incriminating nature was immediately apparent given the circumstances and information available to the officers.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that the officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment because, under the totality of the circumstances—including the tips received, officers’ observations, and their experience—the officers had probable cause to believe the items were stolen, satisfying the plain view exception. The court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment, holding that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. View "Alexander v. Arceneaux" on Justia Law

In this case, the plaintiff alleged that his constitutional rights were violated during his state criminal trial when two deputies, assigned as bailiffs, interacted with the jury during deliberations. According to the complaint, one deputy responded to a juror’s question by telling the jury that they must reach a unanimous verdict and that a hung jury was not an option. The second deputy was present but did not intervene or report the communication to the trial judge. The episode was later found to have influenced the jury, leading to the plaintiff’s conviction. After an evidentiary hearing in state court, the convictions were vacated and charges dismissed.The plaintiff then brought a civil suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin against the deputies and others, asserting violations of his constitutional rights and various state law claims. The deputies asserted qualified immunity as a defense and moved for judgment on the pleadings. The district court denied qualified immunity to the deputy who spoke to the jury, finding the law clearly established. However, as to the other deputy—who had not spoken but allegedly failed to intervene—the district court denied qualified immunity “without prejudice,” explaining that neither party had properly briefed the issue regarding his specific actions and invited a renewed argument at summary judgment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the interlocutory appeal filed by the deputy who had not spoken to the jury. The court held that because the district court had not made a final or substantive ruling on the qualified immunity issue as it pertained to this deputy, there was no appealable decision under the collateral order doctrine. As a result, the Seventh Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Mahajni v Do" on Justia Law

A police operation was planned in Fairfax County, Virginia, based on information from an informant that Jeffery Payne was dealing drugs and often carried a gun. Detectives scheduled a controlled drug buy in a shopping center parking lot, intending to arrest Payne if he appeared. When Payne arrived but sensed something was wrong, he attempted to leave. Detectives in unmarked vehicles pursued him. As Payne neared an exit, Sergeant Moser ordered the detectives to block Payne’s car. Detectives used vehicle maneuvers to stop Payne, including ramming his car, which spun out and was immobilized. Seconds later, Sergeant Moser shot Payne through the back window, believing Payne was reaching for a gun; Payne was later found to be unarmed.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted summary judgment in favor of Sergeant Moser, finding there were no genuine disputes of material fact and that Moser’s actions were objectively reasonable as a matter of law. The district court focused exclusively on the shooting, not addressing Payne’s claims about the vehicle maneuvers.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The Fourth Circuit concluded that the record contained genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether Sergeant Moser used excessive force—both by directing the use of vehicle maneuvers to stop Payne and by shooting him. The court held that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Payne, Sergeant Moser’s conduct was not objectively reasonable as a matter of law. The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, including consideration of whether Sergeant Moser is entitled to qualified immunity. View "Payne v. Moser" on Justia Law

An Iranian citizen, living in the United States, held a credit card account with a large financial institution. Due to United States sanctions against Iran, federal regulations prohibit U.S. banks from providing services to accounts of individuals ordinarily resident in Iran, unless those individuals are not located in Iran. The bank had a compliance policy requiring account holders from such sanctioned countries to regularly provide documents showing they were not residing in those countries. The plaintiff, subject to this policy, submitted various documents as proof of U.S. residency. After the bank mistakenly treated one of his residency documents as temporary rather than permanent, it closed his account when he failed to submit additional documentation.The plaintiff sued in state court, alleging violations of federal and state anti-discrimination and consumer protection statutes, including 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, and the California Unfair Competition Law. The defendant bank removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The district court granted summary judgment for the bank on all claims except for an ECOA notice claim and a related UCL claim, both of which the plaintiff later voluntarily dismissed. The plaintiff then appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act’s liability shield provision immunizes the bank from liability for good faith actions taken in connection with compliance with sanctions regulations, even if such actions are not strictly compelled by the regulations. The court found that the bank’s policy was consistent with federal guidance and that the plaintiff failed to show a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the bank’s good faith. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of the bank. View "NIA V. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A." on Justia Law

A man with a documented history of severe mental illness and repeated suicide attempts was incarcerated in a Michigan jail after starting a fire at a psychiatric hospital in what was described as another suicide attempt. Lindsey O’Neil, who managed the jail’s mental-health unit, was aware of his recent hospitalization for suicidal ideation and past struggles but also observed that the strict suicide precautions—placement in a padded cell and a suicide-prevention gown—were causing him additional distress. Seeking to balance his mental health needs and suicide risk, O’Neil moved him to a less restrictive medical cell, allowed him to wear a regular jumpsuit, and ordered that he receive a suicide-prevention blanket instead of regular bedding. She also requested enhanced monitoring. Due to a miscommunication, jail staff gave him regular bedding, which he used to commit suicide.The man’s estate brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, naming O’Neil, her employer, and others as defendants. The district court, adopting a magistrate judge’s recommendations, granted summary judgment to all defendants except O’Neil, finding that she was not entitled to qualified immunity.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the denial of qualified immunity de novo. The court held that, at the time O’Neil acted, no clearly established law would have made it obvious to every reasonable official in her position that her compromise approach to housing the decedent constituted deliberate indifference to a known suicide risk. Thus, the Sixth Circuit concluded that O’Neil was entitled to qualified immunity, reversed the district court’s denial of that defense, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Lovell v. Cnty. of Kalamazoo" on Justia Law

Police investigated an armed carjacking in St. Louis County after using an electronic tracking feature to follow stolen AirPods, which appeared to be located at a residence on Wylin Court. Based on this information, Detective Joseph Percich applied for a search warrant and submitted an affidavit outlining the investigation and his belief that evidence related to the crime would be found at the address. A county judge issued a no-knock search warrant. The county’s SWAT team executed the warrant, forcibly entered the home, and detained the family living there, who had no connection to the carjacking. The AirPods were ultimately found in the street outside the house.The family sued St. Louis County and Detective Percich in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Their complaint included claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for an alleged Franks v. Delaware violation (claiming the affidavit contained misstatements and omissions), excessive force in the use and conduct of the SWAT team, unreasonable seizure, municipal liability for an unconstitutional SWAT policy, and a state law claim under Missouri’s Sunshine Law. The district court dismissed all of the federal claims, granting Detective Percich qualified immunity and finding that the plaintiffs failed to state viable claims. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that the plaintiffs did not adequately allege that Detective Percich knowingly or recklessly included false statements or omitted material information in his affidavit, so no Franks violation occurred. The court also affirmed the finding of qualified immunity for Detective Percich on the excessive force and seizure claims. The court concluded there was no sufficient allegation of an unconstitutional county policy. Finally, it upheld the district court’s decision to decline jurisdiction over the Sunshine Law claim, affirming the judgment in its entirety. View "Briscoe v. St. Louis County" on Justia Law

A 13-year-old male student at a Virginia Beach middle school received a sexually explicit photo from a female classmate and, several months later, showed the image to other students during the school day. After teachers reported the incident, the assistant principal removed the student from class, questioned him, and searched his phone’s photo gallery. The school resource police officer was notified and began a criminal investigation. The student ultimately showed the explicit photo to the officer, was read his Miranda rights, arrested, and charged in juvenile court with possession of child pornography. The juvenile court found sufficient evidence for guilt but deferred disposition; the charge was dismissed after the student completed court-imposed conditions.The student, through his mother and later counsel, sued the assistant principal, the school resource officer, the Virginia Beach School Board, and the City of Virginia Beach in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. He alleged violations of his Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as conspiracy and Monell claims. The district court granted summary judgment to all defendants, finding the phone search reasonable under New Jersey v. T.L.O., the confession voluntary, no evidence of unlawful conspiracy, and no underlying constitutional violations to support Monell liability.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that the assistant principal’s search of the student’s phone was justified at its inception and reasonable in scope under T.L.O., and that Riley v. California did not displace this standard in the school context. The court also held the student’s confession was voluntary under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, found no evidence of a conspiracy to violate constitutional rights, and determined Monell liability could not attach absent an underlying constitutional violation. The court therefore affirmed summary judgment for all defendants. View "O.W. v. Carr" on Justia Law

A group of eighteen minors residing in California filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other federal officials, claiming that the government’s policy of discounting future costs and benefits in cost-benefit analyses for greenhouse gas (GHG) regulations discriminates against children. The plaintiffs alleged this practice favors present-day consumption, benefiting adults over minors, and leads to under-regulation of GHG emissions. They argued this under-regulation contributes to climate change, which, in turn, causes them various harms including property damage, health issues, and psychological distress.The case was first heard in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. That court dismissed the action, ruling that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing. The court found that the plaintiffs’ claims did not establish a cognizable injury-in-fact, that the alleged environmental harms were not fairly traceable to the government’s discounting policies, and that the requested declaratory relief would not redress their injuries. The district court allowed the plaintiffs one opportunity to amend their complaint, but after the plaintiffs did so, the court again dismissed the case and denied further leave to amend, finding further amendment would be futile.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiffs failed to allege a viable injury to their equal protection rights, as the government’s discounting policies were not shown to be motivated by discriminatory intent toward children. The court also found the alleged environmental harms too attenuated and speculative to be fairly traceable to the challenged policies. Additionally, circuit precedent foreclosed the requested declaratory relief, as it would not redress the plaintiffs’ injuries. The Ninth Circuit concluded that denying further leave to amend was not an abuse of discretion. View "G.B. V. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY" on Justia Law

Raunona Mays, an African American woman employed as a Sergeant with the Arkansas Highway Police, applied for four promotions between 2022 and 2023 but was denied each time. She alleges that less qualified Caucasian males or individuals with less experience and education received the positions. After filing an internal grievance regarding one promotion and receiving no relief, Mays filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) complaint alleging race and sex discrimination, as well as retaliation. The EEOC dismissed her charge and issued a right-to-sue letter, after which Mays brought suit seeking damages, a promotion, and injunctive relief.The Pulaski County Circuit Court denied the Arkansas Highway Police’s motion to dismiss, which was based on sovereign immunity. The agency argued that it could not be sued under the United States Constitution and federal statutes, as well as the Arkansas Civil Rights Act, because it is protected by sovereign immunity. The circuit court rejected this argument, allowing all claims to proceed.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the appeal and held that Mays’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act could not proceed against the state agency because the agency is not considered a “person” under these statutes and is protected by sovereign immunity. The court reversed and remanded those claims for dismissal. However, the court determined that claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are not barred by sovereign immunity when brought against a state agency, and that Mays had pleaded sufficient facts to state a Title VII claim. The decision of the Pulaski County Circuit Court was affirmed as to the Title VII claim but reversed and remanded for dismissal of the other claims. View "ARKANSAS HIGHWAY POLICE v. MAYS" on Justia Law

After a long-term romantic relationship began to deteriorate between Elijah Singleton and Ja’Keya Hampton, Singleton stole Hampton’s cellphone and refused to return it. The day before Hampton’s death, the two communicated via Facebook Messenger, arranging to meet so Singleton could return the phone. Hours later, Hampton was found dead in her car from a gunshot wound. Surveillance footage captured the shooting, with audio indicating Hampton called out to Singleton moments before being shot. After the incident, Singleton attempted to elude law enforcement and destroy evidence, but was arrested following a standoff. He was charged with capital murder and a firearm enhancement.During jury selection in the Crittenden County Circuit Court, a prospective juror who worked at the county jail expressed concerns about a conflict of interest in open court, prompting Singleton to move for a mistrial, which was denied. The State exercised peremptory strikes against four Black prospective jurors. Singleton raised a Batson challenge, arguing the strikes were racially motivated. The State provided race-neutral reasons, such as relationships with the victim’s family, perceived reluctance to serve, and inattentiveness. The circuit court credited the State’s reasons, found them race-neutral, and denied the Batson challenge. Singleton was convicted of first-degree murder and employing a firearm, and sentenced as a habitual offender.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed Singleton’s claims that the circuit court erred in denying his mistrial motion and his Batson challenge. The court held there was no abuse of discretion in denying the mistrial because the prospective juror’s statement did not prejudice the jury. It further held that the circuit court’s findings regarding the Batson challenge were not clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed the convictions. View "SINGLETON v. STATE OF ARKANSAS" on Justia Law